Oral Answers to Questions

WALES

The Secretary of State was asked—

Employment (Cynon Valley)

Ann Clwyd: What recent discussions he has had with the Welsh Assembly Government on employment levels in the Cynon valley.

Paul Murphy: I have regular discussions with Welsh Assembly Government Ministers on a range of issues including employment levels in Wales. Employment is still at record levels, which reflects the success of our policies and our aim to secure employment opportunities for everybody.

Ann Clwyd: First, may I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend to his rightful place on the Front Bench? [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I am grateful to him for that answer. As he knows, unemployment has been cut by half in the Cynon valley, but 88 acres of prime land in the centre of the valley were the site of the former Phurnacite plant, and contain a lot of toxic waste. Nearly 20 years after the closure of the plant, the development remains unfinished. When can the people of Abercwmboi expect that eyesore to disappear?

Paul Murphy: I thank my right hon. Friend for her kind words. She will recall that I answered a question from her on this subject eight or nine years ago. I hope that my answer is a little different this time. I have met the Assembly Deputy First Minister to discuss this issue, and I know that my right hon. Friend has also talked to the Deputy First Minister. There is a strong case for development on that site, and I hope that we can get some progress in Abercwmboi. It is very important to develop what used to be called brownfield sites. In the north of our valleys, and certainly in the Cynon valley, there is a great need to provide employment opportunities, and I hope that we will achieve some success in that.

David Davies: May I also warmly welcome the Secretary of State to his place? I am sure that he will do a very good job. When he considers employment levels, will he also look into the record levels of people claiming sickness benefits? What is he doing to ensure that those who are capable of working are out in the workplace and not signing on for invalidity benefit?

Paul Murphy: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. He and I share the new town, as it was, of Cwmbran, and I look forward to working with him. He will know that the pathfinder project has been highly successful and that the work of the Assembly Government and of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions together are making an impact on both the hon. Gentleman's constituents and mine. He will, I am sure, remember that it was not long ago that unemployment levels in Monmouth and Torfaen were very high. They are now very low.

Cheryl Gillan: May I, too, start by warmly welcoming the right hon. Gentleman back to the Front Bench? I am certainly looking forward to our exchanges, as I know that we both share a desire to see Wales prosper. With that in mind, the  Wester n Mail reports today that Wales ranks bottom in the UK for school results and that Rhondda Cynon Taf is one of the poorest performing education authorities in the country—at least a quarter of its lessons are not up to standard. Is he not ashamed that after 10 years of Labour Government our young people, particularly in the Cynon valley, are leaving school without even the basic skills for finding employment?

Paul Murphy: I thank the hon. Lady for her kind wishes. I look forward to waltzing with her this evening to "Me and my shadow". As for Aberdare and other valley communities, of course there is still work to be done in education and in upskilling people. I saw the article in the  Western Mail this morning. I do not have the slightest doubt that there has been an increase in our schools' standards in the south Wales valleys. In addition to that, the number of pupils in classes has been reduced and the old schools are gradually disappearing with new ones being built in their place. Although there is work to be done, an awful lot has been done, too.

Hywel Francis: May I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend back to his rightful place on the Front Bench? I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on the sterling work that she has done over many years to attract business to the Cynon valley. May I suggest that the Secretary of State enters into discussions with the Labour-led Rhondda Cynon Taf authority and the Wales Co-operative Centre? Those excellent organisations have done much excellent work in attracting business and employment prospects to the valleys.

Paul Murphy: Yes, of course. I know that Rhondda Cynon Taf is doing very good work in that respect. I thank my hon. Friend again for his welcome, and remind him that the last time I spoke from this Dispatch Box he was my special adviser. I know that he does excellent work as Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee, and I am sure that the subject that he has raised will be a great issue for the Committee to deal with.

Cross-border Patients

Peter Bone: What discussions he has had with the First Minister about waiting times for first out-patient appointments for cross-border patients.

Paul Murphy: I regularly meet the First Minister, when we discuss a range of issues including NHS hospital waiting times for cross-border patients. The Assembly Government are investing record amounts in the NHS in Wales and delivering real improvement in the standard of services to all Welsh patients.

Peter Bone: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but official Government figures show that while 82 English patients are waiting more than 13 weeks for their first out-patient appointment, the figure for Wales is 47,698, so there does not seem to have been a lot of improvement. Does the Secretary of State agree that there is not so much a health postcode lottery, but deliberate Government discrimination against the people of Wales?

Paul Murphy: No, I cannot agree with that. The hon. Gentleman is aware that nearly £6 billion has been spent on the health service in Wales. However, he raises an important point about cross-border health arrangements. I was surprised to learn that, in 2006, more than 19,000 patients resident in England were registered with a general practitioner in Wales, while nearly 14,000 patients resident in Wales were registered with a GP in England. Whether we are dealing with primary care or waiting times, there must be an arrangement between the Welsh Assembly Government and the Department of Health, probably an improved protocol on cross-border issues, to deal with any discrepancies. It is fair to say that waiting times in Wales have dropped dramatically over the past year or so and that there are far fewer differences between England and Wales than there were in the past.

Andrew Miller: I respect the right of the Welsh Assembly Government to determine their priorities in health. We welcome the fact that a third of the patients of the Countess of Chester, which serves my constituency, come to that first-class hospital from Wales. Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to ensure that quick progress is made on ensuring that there is fair funding for the Countess of Chester hospital?

Paul Murphy: Yes, I will. My hon. Friend and I discussed this issue only a couple of weeks ago. There are particular problems with dealing with cross-border issues in the north-east of Wales and the north-west of England, and discussions are ongoing about how to deal with them. Of course, the national health service is genuinely national to the United Kingdom and we should not allow cross-border issues to deflect from that basic principle. When the new protocol is agreed, I am sure that it will cover my hon. Friend's points.

Hywel Williams: On behalf of Plaid Cymru, may I welcome the Secretary of State to his post?
	Does the Secretary of State accept that one of the difficulties with this debate on health provision is that it is bedevilled by both a lack of statistics and conveniently quoted statistics? Will he therefore cause the publication of a set of statistics on the number of Welsh people being treated in England, the percentage of Welsh people being treated in England, waiting times, and costs to local health boards, so that the debate can be properly informed and transparent?

Paul Murphy: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. He is absolutely right that statistics should be available so that we can compare notes on the separate systems in Wales and England. I can give him some statistics. As I said, there are just under 20,000 English patients registered in Wales and 14,000 Welsh patients registered in England. However, we need the figures for hospitals, too. When the statistics are compiled, they will be a useful tool to ensure that there is a proper protocol to deal with the issue. I know that the hon. Gentleman, as a north Wales Member, is especially interested in the matter.

Julie Morgan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Welsh patients waiting for treatment in England are part of the overall waiting list in Wales? Does he also agree that today's figures show a dramatic decrease in the number of Welsh patients waiting for out-patient appointments and in in-patient waiting times? Will he join me in congratulating all the health workers involved in that improvement?

Paul Murphy: I certainly will agree with my hon. Friend. A great deal of work has been done in the past couple of years to improve waiting times for people in Wales. Her point about today's figures is very telling. All Members who represent Wales will appreciate that we do not get the number of letters about waiting times that we used to. There is no question but that the situation is better than it used to be, although that is not to say that we can become complacent.

Roger Williams: I too welcome the Secretary of State to his post. He has given distinguished service to Wales and to UK politics.
	Many patients in north Wales are worried that they will not have access to neurological services in Walton. My constituent, Mr. Narborough, has to go to Wrexham for artificial limb services, rather than Hereford; young Ieuan Baynhan has to go all the way to Morriston for plastic surgery; and Owen Williams cannot get treatment for ankylosing spondylitis in Bath. Will the Secretary of State emphasise to his colleagues in the Assembly and in Westminster how important cross-border services are, and will he ensure that we bring common sense to bear on the situation?

Paul Murphy: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. I agree with him that there is a difficulty. Many of his constituents, for example, go to Neville Hall hospital in Monmouthshire, and some cross the border into Shrewsbury and elsewhere. However, we have to put the distances into perspective: a seriously ill person with a rather specialist complaint will inevitably, I suspect, have to travel some distance for treatment. Obviously, the patient him or herself will want the best treatment, but the nearer it is to home, the better. I shall take his concerns up with the Welsh Health Minister.

David Jones: I am sure that the Secretary of State has seen this month's report from the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign, which highlights the difficulty many patients have in accessing services in England. Indeed, one local Welsh health board is unable to commission services at the specialist centre in Oswestry because of funding constraints. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Welsh patients, who, after all, pay their taxes at precisely the same rates as English patients, are entitled to a service of at least equal quality? Does he not share my regret that they are clearly not getting it?

Paul Murphy: I have seen that report. I understand that the Welsh Assembly Government will consider its recommendations and that Edwina Hart will respond shortly. However, I agree with the general thrust of his question on muscular dystrophy services.

HMRC and DWP Offices

Nia Griffith: What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues in HM Treasury on the reduction in the number of HM Revenue and Customs offices in west Wales.

Elfyn Llwyd: What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the effects of restructuring Department for Work and Pensions and HM Revenue and Customs offices in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Huw Irranca-Davies: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues at Her Majesty's Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions, including on that very important issue. We shall continue to take a keen interest in the restructuring and its impact on Wales.

Nia Griffith: My hon. Friend will be aware that Treasury colleagues undertook to have discussions not only with colleagues in other Departments, but with the Welsh Assembly Government, to try to safeguard HMRC jobs and services in west Wales. What progress has been made, and can he report to the House on the matter?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that vital issue. Wales Office Ministers have suggested options—co-location, for example—in meetings and in correspondence with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and others; we have also raised the matter with the First Minister. WAG officials have discussed the option of co-locating offices with HMRC officials, but opportunities for co-location are limited, because HMRC is focused on achieving cost savings and is not taking on new premises. However, co-location may well be a possibility where a building housing an inquiry centre is given up and an alternative building has to be found nearby. I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend and others have done to raise this important matter and push the case forward.

Elfyn Llwyd: May I, through the Under-Secretary of State, add my welcome to the Secretary of State on his return to the Front Bench? He did a lot of sterling work in the north of Ireland, and I am sure that he will do the same for Wales.
	The answer that the Under-Secretary of State gave is not good enough in the light of the concern felt across the House. Twenty-eight of the 33 DWP offices to close in Wales are within the objective 1 area, as are 550 of the 750 jobs to disappear from the HMRC sector. More must be done—not tinkering with buildings, but acting to secure those jobs.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Once again, the hon. Gentleman raises an important point, which is worth putting in context—Wales has now received more than 2,700 posts as part of the Government relocation—but the issue of substance that he raised is important. We understand that the review process is now complete for the Wales urban centres of Cardiff and Swansea, and that last week HMRC told staff that its decision would be announced this Friday. He will understand that I cannot pre-empt the announcement of that decision, but we are all looking forward to hearing it and seeing how it will affect all parts of Wales.

Nick Ainger: My hon. Friend will be aware that his office has been dealing with the matter for the past 12 months. One of the key issues has been the principle of co-location and joined-up government. The Treasury needs further pressure to consider seriously co-location and joined-up government with other Departments, including Welsh Assembly Departments, as well as with the NHS and even the private sector, so that we can secure those very important jobs, particularly in the area covered by the west Wales and the valleys conversion fund.

Huw Irranca-Davies: My hon. Friend reiterates the case that he and others have been advancing for some time. I am grateful to him for mentioning the role played by the Wales Office in raising the issue of co-location. We await with interest the announcement on Friday, and I know that he and others will continue to press their case hard for the effective use of co-location as part of the strategy.

Stephen Crabb: The Minister will be aware that the issue has been dragging on for almost 18 months. Is he aware of the impact that that is having on staff at HMRC offices—  [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The noise level is too high. There should not be conversations.  [ Interruption. ] That goes for Members on the Labour Benches as well.

Stephen Crabb: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker.
	Is the Minister aware of the enormous and unacceptable uncertainty facing staff at HMRC offices such as the one in Haverfordwest, which employs 60 people, and the impact that that uncertainty is having on the morale of the HMRC work force, who provide a vital front-line service? When will staff find out whether they will be made redundant, or whether they might be offered a relocation package or work elsewhere? The uncertainty faced by people in my constituency is the most worrying thing for them at the moment.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman rightly says that one of the biggest issues at the moment is the uncertainty of people looking at their futures in HMRC. I agree. Any process of reform such as this brings uncertainty, but as I said in response to previous questions, we hope for some conclusion in the announcement on Friday, to which we look forward with interest. He is absolutely right to say that people want to know where they stand as a result of the consultation.

Mark Williams: The Secretary of State has spoken eloquently and wisely on these matters in the Welsh Grand Committee, but will the Minister deal with the inconsistency of an objective 1 area losing jobs on such a scale? We are asking for highly paid, highly skilled jobs, but HMRC offices such as the one in Aberystwyth could be reduced to a rump of only three employees. Will he ensure that the outcome of any discussions and the report on Cardiff and Swansea will not prejudice the case of rural tax offices in west Wales, not least because relocation means very little to people in Aberystwyth, Haverfordwest and similar places?

Huw Irranca-Davies: Again, the hon. Gentleman, along with many other hon. Members, has highlighted the importance of the issue right across Wales, not only in west Wales and the valleys, but in the north, south, east and west. I cannot pre-empt Friday's announcement, but the points that he and others have made have been noted and fed into the consultation. We look forward with great interest to the result.

Arriva

Lembit �pik: What discussions he has had with Arriva on the performance of cross-border Arriva train services.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I have regular discussions with representatives of several organisations regarding rail performance in Wales, including Arriva and First Great Western.

Lembit �pik: Given the Government's willingness to nationalise failing industries, will the Minister consider nationalising Arriva trains? If not, will he convene a summit with Liberal Democrat MPs, MPs from other parties and interested groups, including Arriva itself, on how to improve the poor service on the Cambrian line, and will he consider practical options such as combining infrastructure and operations management of the rail service?

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman tempts me down the branch line of nationalisation, but at least not in to the failed sidings of Tory rail privatisation. He raises an important issue about the Cambrian line. In August 2007, the Deputy First Minister announced that the Welsh Assembly Government will spend 8 million on capital improvements on the line between Aberystwyth and Shrewsbury. That funding will be matched by 5 million from Network Rail. Of course, I am always more than willing to meet him and other Members who want to raise issues of vital concern to rail users in Wales.

Si�n James: I speak as the chairwoman of the recently formed all-party group on rail in Wales. In light of the announcement made yesterday about franchise breaches by First Great Western trains, will the Minister meet the company to discuss cross-border issues?

Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes, I undoubtedly will. I congratulate her on her leading role in the all-party group on rail in Wales. I am sure that she will do great service. On the announcement made in the papers today, in consultation with the Welsh Assembly Government, Arriva is to lease on a short-term basis five class 150/1 units to First Great Western that are not currently being deployed, for the Wales and borders franchise, but that sub-lease will be available to meet future demand and can be recalled at three months' notice. I undertake to meet Arriva and First Great Western to discuss the issue.

Cheryl Gillan: Last October, the Under-Secretary of State said that he was keen to see the borderlands line between Wrexham and Bidston electrified, and that is crucial to the north Wales economy. He must be disappointed that the Plaid Assembly Minister totally omitted any mention of the scheme when laying out the Assembly's transport funding priorities for the next four years. Is that not an instance of Labour having sold out to Plaid in return for propping them up in government, to the extent of sacrificing an important infrastructure project?

Huw Irranca-Davies: Not at all, and I point out that the Welsh Assembly Government and Merseytravel have jointly commissioned Network Rail to undertake a study of the scope and cost of options for a full or partial electrification of the Wrexham to Bidston line. The results of the study will be available sometime in spring 2008, and we await them with interest.

Creative Industries

Ian Lucas: What discussions he has had with the Welsh Assembly Government on the contribution of creative industries to the Welsh economy.

Paul Murphy: The creative industries make a significant contribution to the economy of Wales, not just through the direct investment of funds in facilities and jobs, but through the creation and stimulation of subsidiary industries and other smaller businesses.

Ian Lucas: Budding David Leans and Nick Parks at Yale college and NEWIthe North East Wales Institute of Higher Educationare producing film-work and animation-work of the highest quality. The real challenge is to ensure that more people see that work. Will my right hon. Friend meet representatives of broadcasting organisations in Wales and press them to showcase more new talent on our airwaves?

Paul Murphy: I would be more than delighted to do so.

Military Training Academy

John Smith: When he last met the First Minister to discuss the military training academy at St. Athan.

Paul Murphy: I have regular discussions with the First Minister on a range of issues. The defence training academy at St. Athan will be a massive boost to south Wales, providing widespread benefits to the local economy.

John Smith: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. When he next meets the First Minister, will he impress on him how vital it is to provide a road link to the M4 motorway by 2013, so that the whole of Wales can benefit from the record-breaking, multi-billion pound investment in training in my constituency, Vale of Glamorgan?

Paul Murphy: Yes.

Mark Pritchard: I am sorry to spoil the party of the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith) over there, but the fact is that the Minister will know that Metrix and the Ministry of Defence have just scrapped package 1 of the defence training review. Can the right hon. Gentleman give a 100 per cent. guarantee that package 2 is safe?

Paul Murphy: No, I cannot give such a guaranteeI am not the Secretary of State for Defencebut what I can say to him is that the preferred bidder for package 2 could still be Metrix, but that package 1, so far as St. Athan is concerned, is absolutely safe, and that 11 billion is to be spent on St. Athan, the biggest ever investment in Wales by the Ministry of Defence.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked

Engagements

Kelvin Hopkins: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 27 February.

Gordon Brown: Before I list my engagements, I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in sending our profound condolences to the family and friends of Corporal Damian Mulvihill of 40 Commando Royal Marines, who was killed in Afghanistan last week. We owe him and others who have lost their lives a deep debt of gratitude.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Kelvin Hopkins: Last week the parliamentary Labour party was united in voting enthusiastically to nationalise a bank. On Friday two thirds of the parliamentary Labour party stayed in Westminster to vote for the Temporary and Agency Workers (Equal Treatment) Bill, so ably promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller). After that vote we gathered in New Palace Yard for a team photograph and sang The Red Flag. Does my right hon. Friend accept that with more of the same, he will lead us to a famous victory at the next election?

Gordon Brown: I believe that the whole country believes that we were right to take the decisions that we took on Northern Rock. I also believe that the whole of the European Union, all 27 countries, want to see an agreement on agency workers. We are working throughout Europe to get such an agreement. I think that my hon. Friend will agree that since 1997 we have introduced the first legal national minimum wage, which has benefited millions of workers in this country. The unfortunate thing is that it was opposed by the Conservative party.

David Cameron: I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Corporal Damian Mulvihill. He died serving our country, and we should honour his memory.
	One of the burning issues this week is this place. Is it good value for money? Are we sufficiently transparent? Do we debate the issues that people care about? Do we do it in a way that switches them on, rather than turns them off? I wanted to ask the Prime Minister some questions about that. Let me start with pay. I have long believed that Members of Parliament should not vote for their own pay. I know that the Prime Minister has instituted a review. Will he put it beyond doubt today and give us a guarantee that MPs will not vote for their pay again?

Gordon Brown: I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that the House has already agreed that MPs should not vote on their pay in future. Perhaps he should read the decisions that have been made by the House. On a general point, I agree with him. The message should go out today clearly that decisions in this country should be made in the Chamber of this House and not on the roof of this House. That is a very important message that should be sent out to those people who are protesting. As for pay, I hope we will reach an agreement in the summer.

David Cameron: I am glad of that guarantee that the Prime Minister has given. It is a real step forward. Allied to [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must be allowed to speak.

David Cameron: Allied to the issue of pay is the issue of pensions. Many of our constituents look at our pension arrangements and, having seen that their final salary schemes have been cancelled [Interruption.] I think people at home watching this want to know the answer to these questions. Is not the least that we should do to reassure people to close the parliamentary pension scheme to new members and to start again in the new Parliament?

Gordon Brown: On the first question, I remind the right hon. Gentleman, so that he is absolutely clear, that the House has voted for the decision about MPs' pay to be taken out of the hands of MPs. It was a unanimous vote of the House of Commons. He has already supported that, as have we. On pensions, he can table that proposal as part of the discussions. It is one thing that can be looked at, but that must also be a decision of the House.

David Cameron: Of course, eventually, these are matters for this House, but it is right for party leaders to say where they stand and give a lead.
	Allied to the questions of pay and pensions are the issues of allowances and expenses. Irrespective of what the information tribunal agrees for the past, does the Prime Minister agree with me that for the future, the very least we should do is have openness and transparency and the publication of the details and breakdown of allowances and expenses for all Members of Parliament?

Gordon Brown: If the right hon. Gentleman had done his research, he would know that I have already written to the Speaker saying that that is exactly what I want to see. I wrote to the Speaker immediately after the case that was raised about one particular Member, and said that there had to be transparency on allowances. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that that is my position, and that will continue to be my position.

David Cameron: I welcome this clarity. I read the Prime Minister's letter very carefully, and I have to say that I did not think that there was that level of clarity at all.
	Another issue, which probably does more to undermine people's faith in politics[Hon. Members: It's you!] Why don't you just wait for the question? Then you can shout.  [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is right; hon. Members should wait for the question and listen to it. It is not the place of hon. Members to barrack anyone in this Chamber.

David Cameron: One of the things that do undermine politics is the repetitive shouting of Labour Members.
	One of the things that most undermine faith and trust in politics is the fact that we make promises and then do not keep them. Today hundreds of people are marching on Parliament asking for the referendum that they were promised on the European constitutionnot just in our manifesto, but in everybody's manifesto. I know that the Prime Minister is not going to change his mind, but will he at least accept that it cannot be right to ask his own Members of Parliament, many of whom really feel a conscientious belief that they signed up to a manifesto, to vote against their consciences? Can that be right?

Gordon Brown: First of all, on the question of allowances, let us be absolutely clear about what happened. We voted as a House to refer this to a Committee of the House to look at these very matters. The right hon. Gentleman agreed that we should do so. I have sent in my views to the Speaker about what should be done; perhaps others can add their views too, to the Committee. But the right hon. Gentleman should remember that he agreed that a Committee should look at these matters, and that the judgment should not be pre-empted by decisions that he wants to make.
	As far as the European referendum is concerned, the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that in Brussels last summer the decision was made that the constitutional concept be abandoned. In other words, this is an amending treaty and not a constitutional treaty. We have said that there is no necessity now to have a referendum. That will be voted on in the House in the next few days. The question that he will have to answer is: when the House, if it does, votes against there being a referendum, is he going to insist on a referendum after ratification? Is he going to insist on renegotiating the treaty? Is that going to be the Conservative party position for the future?

David Cameron: If the Prime Minister is so confident of his position, given that all of his Members of Parliament agreed the manifesto, he should give them a free vote.
	I want to put to the Prime Minister one other point that could help to restore some invigoration in our politics. It is this: there is no doubt that one of the reasons why the American elections have caught people's imagination is that night after night the contenders debate in live television debates. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that the time for such live television debates at general election times has now come? Will he agree to hold television debates with the leaders of the main political parties so that people can see us discuss the issues, the policies and the challenges for the future of this country?

Gordon Brown: In America they do not have Question Time every week, where we can examine what the different policies of the different parties are.
	I come back to the question of the European referendum. The right hon. Gentleman says that he is demanding a European referendum; there are members of his party who say that now that the constitutional concept has been abandoned, there should be no referendum. He has not got unity in his party on this issue. He should face up to the vital fact that there is a disagreement about this issue, but the constitutional concept in Europe has now been abandoned.

David Cameron: I have to say to the Prime Minister that if he really thinks that these exchanges once a week are a substitute for a proper television debate, then he is even more out of touch than I thought. We have to be honest with ourselves: not many people watch these exchanges, and not all those who do are hugely impressed with them. There are parliamentary systems that do have television debates; we have seen them in Italy, Australia and Poland. The Prime Minister has no objection in principle: when he was shadow Chancellor, he did a television debate against the then Chancellor of the Exchequerso I have to ask him: what on earth is he frightened of?

Gordon Brown: This is the man who makes speeches about the primacy of Parliament. This is the man who says that we should keep our promises, and also said that there would be an end to Punch and Judy politicsand what did he then do?
	On the European referendum [ Interruption. ] The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of the European referendum, so perhaps he will now answer the question: if we ratify the treaty, is he still committed to a referendum and still committed to renegotiating the treaty? The country will need to know the answers from him as well.

Gerald Kaufman: Since my grandmother and many other members of my family were murdered by the Nazis in a holocaust that slaughtered 6 million Jews, together with Gypsies, homosexuals and vast numbers of other innocent people, will my right hon. Friend reaffirm the Government's support for the Holocaust Educational Trust's Lessons from Auschwitz programme, which takes sixth-formers to see for themselves where and how these atrocities were committed? Will he condemn with scorn those who label as a gimmick an essential project to ensure that one of the vilest ever crimes against humanity will never be forgotten?

Gordon Brown: I will ensure that the Holocaust Educational Trust can continue its vital work and that thousands of school pupils can go to Auschwitz and see for themselves the horrors that happened and then report back to their schools. I would have hoped that there would be agreement in all parts of the House on this.

Nicholas Clegg: May I  [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Allow the right hon. Gentleman to speak.

Nicholas Clegg: May I add my own expressions of sympathy and condolence to the family and friends of Corporal Damian Mulvihill.
	The NHS spends more than 300 million a year on anti-depressant drugs, which we learned yesterday probably do not help many of the people taking them. Is it not time the Prime Minister developed a mental health strategy that helps patients rather than pouring millions of pounds into the pockets of the pharmaceutical industry for drugs that do not even work?

Gordon Brown: First of all, I say to the right hon. Gentleman: welcome back. I hope that this time he can stay long enough to hear the answers.
	The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we should do more so that people are not dependent on the drugs that he is talking about. That is precisely why the Secretary of State for Health is investing in providing more therapists to help people. We have made a decision to employ 3,600 more, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will support that.

Nicholas Clegg: It is good to be here. It is a shame that the Prime Minister seeks to defend clapped-out 19th century procedures in this House, which are preventing the British people from[Hon. Members: Oh!]

Mr. Speaker: Order. [Hon. Members: More!] Order. I just say to the right hon. Gentleman that he should be careful where he goes with this.  [Interruption.] Order. Now, let the right hon. Gentleman speak. The Speaker has given him some advice; I give hon. Members advice all day. It is all right.

Nicholas Clegg: Of course I will be careful, Mr. Speaker. I was talking about procedures, not peopleprocedures that prevent the British people from having a say in this Chamber, which is what they want.
	On the issue of mental health, has the Prime Minister forgotten what his own expert, Lord Layard said? He said that we need an additional 10,000 therapists, not the 3,000 that the Prime Minister is talking about. Why is he taking half measures when we have the scandal of some patients waiting up to three and a half years just to see a therapist?

Gordon Brown: Lord Layard has said that he supports the policy we are putting forward. That policy will receive the support of 173 million, to invest in the psychological help that people can give. We are looking at piloting some of Lord Layard's proposals on how we can help people get into work, so we are doing exactly what the right hon. Gentleman is asking us to do.
	As for the matter of the European vote, which the right hon. Gentleman also raised, I just remind him that his party put that issue to a vote only a few weeks ago, on 14 November 2007, when it said that
	the Gracious Speech fails to announce proposals for a referendum on the United Kingdom's continued membership of the European Union.[ Official Report, 14 November 2007; Vol. 467, c. 781.]
	When they put their proposal to the vote, 464 voted against them, and only 68 for them. That is the level of support for their proposal.

Joan Humble: The Prime Minister will be aware of the huge disappointment in Blackpool when we were not awarded a super-casino after years of campaigning. Will he therefore agree to meet me, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden), to discuss further the regeneration package announced for Blackpool, and especially to discuss how we can lever in private sector money to match the announcement that the Government have made about their investment?

Gordon Brown: I applaud what my hon. Friend has done to put the case for Blackpool, and she and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South have argued the case for regeneration. We have looked at the proposals that she and others have put forward. We are in favour of a substantial scheme of regeneration. We cancelled the super-casino, but our view has always been that not only Manchester but Blackpool should have more measures of regeneration allocated to them by Government support. I will be happy to meet her to discuss that.

Robert Wilson: According to the Office for National Statistics, 207,000 British people left the UK last year. That is the highest number on record. Just what is it about the Prime Minister's Government that makes British people want to pack their bags and leave the country?

Gordon Brown: I do not think the hon. Gentleman understands that every year about 180 million people are moving around the world. They are moving to study, to work and to find new lives for themselves. It is inevitable that there will be higher mobility in future years. The question for us is one that all parties will want answered. We have to have a system of managed migration for our country, which is precisely what our proposals of last week were determined to achieve.

Barbara Keeley: for cervical cancer saves thousands of lives every year, but we know we have to do better to increase uptake among young women, particularly those in their late 20s and early 30s. Given that, will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Salford primary care trust, whose initiative to improve those processes brought about a 7 per cent. increase in uptake? In fact, is it not the case that action locally and nationally to improve screening is a lifesaver, not a political gimmick?

Gordon Brown: I am sorry that the Opposition last week said that the cervical cancer screening times that we are introducing were a gimmick. What we are doing is introducing vaccination against cervical cancer, available to teenagers. That is a big investment that we are making because it will save lives. I hope that there will be support in all parties for the action that we are taking.

Michael Jack: As someone who has now passed his 60th birthday, I acknowledge the benefits and the resources of concessionary bus passes. However, is the Prime Minister aware that small borough councils that have a high level of tourism, such as Fylde, are already contemplating cutting local services so as to be able to fund fully the burden of concessionary bus fares? Will the Prime Minister look again at the allocation mechanism for those resources, to ensure that resources match the burden on small authorities?

Gordon Brown: The right hon. Gentleman may know that we have provided 650 million to local authorities over the next three years to cover the extra cost of national travel. We have done it in that way after a great deal of consultation with local authorities, which asked for the scheme to be developed in the way that it has been. As a result of that consultation, the right hon. Gentleman's council will receive 275,000 for that national scheme, and I believe that other councils in his area are receiving similar amounts of money. By April, we will be able to say that there will be free off-peak national concessionary travel for every pensioner in the country. That is a substantial advance, and I hope that it will have the support of all people in the country.

Chris Mole: I am sure that the whole House will welcome the conviction last week of Steven Wright for the foul murder of five young women in my constituency and commend the role of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service in their successful prosecution of him. Key to the early detection and successful prosecution was the identification of Wright through the national DNA database. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that a proportionate and effective database of DNA is sustained, not just one that records people convicted for violent and sexual offences?

Gordon Brown: I join my hon. Friend in thanking and congratulating the police and those involved in bringing a successful prosecution for the murder of these prostitutes in Ipswich. Our country is proud of the professionalism and dedication that the police and all the prosecuting authorities show. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of DNA. I can tell the House that the DNA database produced matches that enabled us to prosecute in the case of 452 homicides, 644 rapes, 222 other sex offences and 1,800 other violent crimes, all in the past year. That shows that we are in a position to make the best use of the DNA database to catch people who otherwise may go free. I hope that other parties in the House will reconsider their opposition to the 2003 Act that extended the DNA database, to the benefit of successful prosecutions.

Angus Robertson: The most recent election in Scotland took place last week in the Highland ward in Perthshire, where the Scottish National party secured 60 per cent. of the vote and Labour came in last at 3 per cent. What particular UK Government policy does the Prime Minister think motivated those 97 hardy souls to vote Labour?

Gordon Brown: As the hon. Gentleman knows, in the last Scottish elections, even with the success of the SNP, 68 per cent. of the population voted against parties supporting separation. On any opinion polls conducted, support for independence has not risen since last summer, but fallen. That shows the views of the Scottish people: they want to be part of the United Kingdom.

Helen Jones: People in my constituency who suffer because of drug-related crime want the offenders caught and punished, but they also want action to get them off drugs before they wreck their own lives and destroy their communities. What more can the Prime Minister do to ensure that there is effective co-ordination among Departments to tackle the misery that drug addiction causes to the addicts, their families and the people around them?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has taken a big interest in such matters. Although the numbers of people on drugs are down and the numbers of drug-related crimes are down, we still have a major problem to deal with, in respect of the number of people dependent on drugs in our country. Dealing with it starts with proper education in primary and secondary schools, and with proper systems for treating people who are drug-dependent, and includes programmes for treating people in prison, where we want to move the number of people on drugs who are treated to an additional 1,000 a week.
	I also believe that we must do more to help people who are on benefit back into work. It is right, then, to look at the system that we have for paying incapacity benefit, to see whether there is a better way of ensuring that the 300,000 people on incapacity benefit who are drug-dependent can receive the treatment necessary, allowing them to be in a position to get back to work and not be wholly dependent for ever on one benefit. We are going to come forward with proposals to reform the system to ensure that people who are on drugs have the best possibility of getting off drugs, with the best possible treatment.

Roger Williams: Many vulnerable communities are waiting to hear about the future of their post offices. Such challenges often bring out the best in people: if they are given the opportunity, they can organise themselves and their resources to ensure that those facilities stay open. That often includes the local shop. Will the Prime Minister call a moratorium on post office closures so that people can use the full potential of the Sustainable Communities Bill and the powers of devolved Administrations to minimise those losses and protect the quality of life of the people living in those communities?

Gordon Brown: If proposals are made to give communities better means of providing postal services, and if they include a financial way forward to do so, we are very happy to look at them. On present proposals for post offices, the hon. Gentleman will know that we have set aside 1.7 billion for the next three years to implement the programme of post offices changes. Under the previous Government, no money was provided when post offices were going under, but we are providing the money to make it possible. About 10 per cent. of the proposals have already been turned down, and if the hon. Gentleman brings forward proper and financially costed proposals, we will look at them.

Andrew Love: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Mr. Demetris Christofias, the newly elected President of the Republic of Cyprus? His election may turn out to be the last opportunity to find a solution to the Cyprus problem. In those circumstances, will my right hon. Friend make it his first priority to find a resolution of the problems of Cyprus and do everything he can to reunite the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities on the island?

Gordon Brown: I congratulate the new President-elect on his victory. Cypriots have clearly demonstrated that they want a comprehensive settlement, or progress towards it, in the next few months. I have invited the new President to come to London to talk about these issues, and I believe that there is new hope that such a settlement can be achieved.

John Baron: The Leader of the House, the Prime Minister's own deputy leader, has described Fidel Castro as a hero of the left. Given Castro's persecution of homosexuals, his imprisonment of journalists and his employment of thousands of people on phone-tapping duties, does the Prime Minister agree?

Gordon Brown: There can be no defence against the abuse of democratic rights in any country.

David Chaytor: The Home Secretary's determination to make it easier for police officers to confiscate alcohol from teenage binge drinkers will be welcomed by almost all parents in my constituency. Sadly, however, one parent disagrees. He thinks that this idea is a gimmickand it says so on the Tory party's website. Does the Prime Minister know who that parent might be?

Gordon Brown: I am sorry that the Conservative party chose last Friday to say that something as important as controlling the supply of alcohol and stopping binge drinking in our community is simply a gimmick. It is right to confiscate alcohol from under-18s, it is right to prosecute shops and retail outlets that sell alcohol to under-18s, and it is right to step up the measures that we will be taking in the next few days against binge drinking in our country. I believe that the whole country wants us to take those measures, and that they do not see measures that make a difference as a gimmick. That idea is just playing politics, but we are getting on with the business of governing.

Hugo Swire: Does the Prime Minister share my concern about the worrying increase in tension in Serbia and, even more worryingly, in parts of the Republika Srpska, following the granting of independence to Kosovo? Does he agree with Carla del Ponte that more effort must be made to send a strong signal to bring General Mladic and Karadzic to justice in The Hague in the very near future?

Gordon Brown: Bringing these two men to justice is a very important part of reconciliation after what happened in that area of Europe. I would say to the hon. Gentleman also that what has happened in Kosovo is the right way forward. The supervised independence that is happening has happened with peace and stability. I hope, as a result of the NATO force and the European Union civilian force there, that that will continue, and I hope that Serbia, where there are tension and understandable anxieties, will see that it has a European future, and we will support it in that.

Rosie Cooper: In Fairtrade fortnight, we congratulate those towns and parish councils that have managed to achieve Fairtrade status. They should be supported. Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating them? However, in my area, West Lancashire district council, a Tory council, is reluctant to participate and has absolutely rejected the idea, on the basis that it is more expensive or the coffee does not taste correctly. There is no measure of what fair trade means to other people throughout the world, globally

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must stop.

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Fair trade is important to the poorest countries of the world. The Fairtrade fortnight that is taking place means that there are many local celebrations that we should be supporting. UK shoppers have bought nearly 500 million fair trade products this year. That is up 40 per cent., which shows the great support that there now is for fair trade. Fair trade is not a gimmick. It is an important part of building justice throughout the world.

Personal Debt (Advice and Regulation)

Sandra Gidley: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require schools to provide education on personal money management; to make provision about advice centres on personal finance; to impose conditions on the activities of money-lending companies; and for connected purposes.
	Debt has always been a problem for some, but we live in an increasingly materialistic society and that is fuelling a growing debt crisis. Yesterday we heard from the Children's Society about the increasing materialism shown by children and the pressure that that can cause. Children are keen to conform, and that is a particular problem in the teenage years. A separate survey of 14 to 18-year-olds revealed that more than half of them are in some sort of debt by the age of 17 and a further 26 per cent. saw credit cards and overdrafts as a way of increasing their spending power.
	Last year, 106,645 people were declared insolvent or bankrupt. That is 272 people every day. Many others are wondering whether they will be next, but the problems start building up early in life. Quite simply, many 18-year-olds today start their adult life in debt. A student loan, topped up by tempting deals on credit cards and store cards, causes the problem. Faced with the offer of 10 per cent. off if a person signs up for a store card today, many teenagers and young adults are ill equipped to consider fully the long-term cost of so much cheap credit. A survey by the Nationwide building society revealed that 75 per cent. of people in the UK do not understand the monetary value that a 1 per cent. difference in mortgage rates can make. It is probably safe to assume that that lack of knowledge can be extended to credit card repayments.
	In the UK, personal debt as a proportion of income is the highest it has ever been and the highest in the developed world. We are, quite simply, the debtor of Europe. If the problem is not to deteriorate further, we need to take action at a number of levels. First, we need to get people while they are young. Currently, the teaching of personal financial management is not compulsory in schools, although there are opportunities for pupils to learn about managing their money through personal, social and health education, citizenship and maths lessons. However, the reality is that PSHE lessons are not always taken as seriously as they should be and there is no monitoring of what is taught. Some schools have found it difficult to teach financial literacy: some staff do not feel confident about teaching it, and that is combined with the difficulty of fitting the lessons into an already crowded timetable. Above all, however, education should equip people for life, so the subject deserves to be taught in its own right.
	Financial education will be part of the national curriculum from 2008, but that will cover only the role of business and financial services. What children really need are lessons in budgeting and money management, as they will help them understand the implications of any simple financial decisions that they make and, hence, help them to avoid future debt.
	Given the Government's desire for individuals to take more personal responsibility for their long-term financial well-being, the only real surprise is that that education need has not been addressed already. For many adults, however, debt is a problem that already exists. People in debt simply do not know how to climb out of the debt trap, and in many cases some simple advice and support can help people to turn their lives around.
	Yet the problem is growing. Since 1997, total British household debt has risen 170 per cent. The average interest paid on debt by each household per year has risen to approximately 3,800an increase of 500 over the past year alone. According to Credit Action debt statistics, 80 per cent. of Britons regularly admit to overspending.
	One tool for decreasing the problem is to ensure that people have access to free independent advice and assistance. The Thoreson review is currently looking into the matter, but Otto Thoreson has stated recently that providing a national, generic financial advice service would improve financial capability across the UK, and that the benefits would outweigh the costs by about three and a half to one. He has already identified the cohort of the population most in need of the advice, and calculated that there are 19 million or so people with significant needs. That represents nearly half the UK adult population.
	Some advice is available already, but the organisations offering it face an increased burden. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux received 434,592 requests for help in November last year. That is 30,000 more than in the whole of the 1996-97 accounting year, which shows how the problem has grown.
	The Government should be working actively with the financial services industry to achieve a national roll-out of independent advice centres that would provide financial health checks. Currently, NACAB provides a valuable service but it usually offers help only once people have got themselves into considerable financial difficulty. It has recently trialled a new initiative called Moneyplan, whose aim is to find a way to meet the advice gap that has been identified in the provision of generic financial advice.
	The main findings so far suggest a great deal of unmet demand. The project does not deal with crisis management, but it often has to deal with explaining financial documents that the individual simply does not understand. Also, the Resolution Foundation has investigated the feasibility of establishing a new national financial advice resource, funded by a public-private partnership, to provide financial advice targeted at people on low incomes. The foundation makes the point that a significant proportion of that group are currently making poor financial choices. I suggest that making poor financial choices is not restricted to people on low incomes.
	The Resolution Foundation report also concludes that, by drawing on technology and harnessing learning from existing services, the financial advice needed could be provided at high volumes and at a reasonable cost. The time has come for Government to take a lead on the problem, rather than wait for some third-party organisation to try to get people together.
	My Bill would provide a mechanism for achieving a national roll-out of independent advice centres that provide financial health checks. A network that provides genuinely independent advice would be in the best interests of the financial industry. It would be in the industry's interests to finance the scheme collectively, as it would help to restore battered confidence by providing advice of a high professional standard that is not linked to any particular product.
	However, it is no good having improved financial literacy if lending practices are confusing to the consumer. There is a need for greater transparency in a number of areas. Young people often collect store cards and, despite recent changes, some of the charging remains complex and fairly opaque. We need to have a simpler mechanism for explaining to people what their average monthly repayments will be for each 100 that they borrowboth in the initial phases of the loan, and once any offer period has expired. The current concept of APRthe annual percentage rateis meaningless to most people.
	There is also a need for tighter guidelines by the Financial Services Authority over non-income verified mortgages. We do not want to return to the days when the self-employed found it hard to obtain loans, but the recent growth in the number of unverified mortgages suggests an eagerness to promote competitive lending. Lenders should have more responsibility for ensuring that a mortgage is granted only if it is proven that the suggested repayments are feasible. The issue is hugely topical. Only this morning on the Today programme, Hector Sants, head of the Financial Services Authority, acknowledged the need to return to a rather more old-fashioned world in which banks lent money, kept risks themselves, and had to make rather fuller judgments about the people to whom they lent.
	The aforementioned measures can only go so far, and there is a pressing need to find ways in which to put the brakes on irresponsible financial behaviour. One way of doing that would be to adopt greater debt-inflation pooling, in order to prevent irresponsible lending and borrowing. At present, about 60 per cent. of debt data are pooled; the 40 per cent. that are not includes student debt, and figures show that more than 59,000 graduates are in arrears of student loan payments by more than six months. Clearly that information needs to be part of the bigger picture, so that young adults are not allowed to get further into debt and lenders have the greatest possible amount of information on the people to whom they are lending.
	This is very much a 21st-century problem. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who has done much to highlight the issues in the past. The Bill is a modest contribution to tackling the problem, and I hope that the Government will support its aims.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Sandra Gidley, Rosie Cooper, John Bercow, Peter Luff, Mr. David Drew, Mr. Don Foster, Dr. Vincent Cable and Lorely Burt.

Personal Debt (advice and Regulation)

Sandra Gidley accordingly presented a Bill to require schools to provide education on personal money management; to make provision about advice centres on personal finance; to impose conditions on the activities of money-lending companies; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 25 April, and to be printed [Bill 77].

Points of Order

Julia Goldsworthy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you considered the instruction on the Order Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg), and will you be selecting it?

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the matter does not arise today, so the question is rather hypothetical.

Simon Hughes: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry about this

Mr. Speaker: As I have said in the House before, the cares of tomorrow are for a day still to come.

Simon Hughes: I am very aware of that, Mr. Speaker. I am keen that none of us should have this care tomorrow or the day after, which is why I am raising it today.
	On the issue of Standing Order No. 66 and instructions, may I ask your advice on whether you might be able to help us in two ways, Mr. Speaker? I think I am right in saying that, under the present arrangements, when an instruction is issued there is no early indication of its selection like the indication through your office of the selection of amendments, for instance, or other selection in the Lobby. Will you consider whether it would be possible for you to indicate selection or non-selection of instructions with some notice, so that the House as a whole knows in advance whether an instruction has been selected? That is my first question.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot possibly give an answer just now, but I will consider the hon. Gentleman's point. That is question No. 1 out of the way. As an engineer, I like to do one thing at a time. Now let me deal with the next question.

Simon Hughes: You have been very helpful, Mr. Speaker. I have one more request, to which I hope you will be equally sympathetic.
	There are some instructions which it seems to me may not be necessaryalthough they are perfectly legitimate as instructions on the Order Paperbecause the legislation to be debated could include the business that is the subject of the instruction. I have been presentas you have, Siron occasions when instructions have been issued and it has been accepted that the matter in question is one with which the Bill could deal: Crossrail is one example. Will you, Mr. Speaker, give consideration to whether I might be spared the need to have to raise such an issue in future because you are able to rule that a Bill covers the matters dealt with by an instruction so we do not have to put it on the Order Paper?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must understand that I deal with the business of the day, and I therefore cannot give hypothetical rulings.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (LISBON TREATY) (No. 7)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [28 January],
	That the Order of 28th January be further amended as follows: in the Table, in the entry for Allotted Day 8, in the third column:
	(a) for '4frac12; hours' substitute '3frac12; hours', and
	(b) for '1frac12; hours' substitute '2frac12; hours'.  [Mr. Watts . ]
	 Question agreed to.

Treaty of Lisbon (No. 8)
	  
	[8th Allotted Day]

Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague).

Hilary Benn: I beg to move,
	That this House approves the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning climate change.
	I am sure that the whole House welcomes the opportunity to debate the part that Europe should play in tackling dangerous climate change. Leadership on this most important task facing our planet is exactly what we need Europe for, and in providing that lead Europe is building on the environmental foundations it has created since its early days. It was in 1987 that environmental protection was first brought into the treaty of Rome, with the signing of the Single European Act. In 1993, the Maastricht treaty established the environment as an activity of the EU. The treaty of Amsterdam in 1997 included balanced and sustainable development as a new objective of the European Union. There was a declaration by member states alongside the treaty of Nice in 2001, which expressed determination that the EU play a leading role in promoting environmental protection both in the EU and globally. Finally, the Lisbon treaty specifically recognises combating climate change as an important strategic objective of EU policy.

Colin Challen: Regardless of what we think of the nature of the protests that have taken place today on the roof of Parliament and a few days ago at Heathrow, they point to a major contradiction in EU policy. On the one hand, the approval of the open skies treaty between the United States of America and the EU could lead to 25 million tonnes of carbon being released into the atmosphere, while on the other we have this debate today about climate change. Will the Secretary of State press for the treaty's provisions on climate change to trump the other things that are pushing to make matters worse?

Hilary Benn: I shall address aviation later in my speech. Interestingly, although the abandoned constitution did not contain a specific reference to climate change, the Lisbon treaty specifically recognises the need to combat climate change as a strategic objective of the EU. I hope my hon. Friend acknowledges that.  [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe says, it is an improvement. That is because it recognises the changes in politics, in science and in understanding and awareness. If I may say so, that makes the Opposition amendment look pretty strange. I am looking forward to hearing the speech of the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), because what on earth would the rest of the world make of us if, having put that into the Lisbon treatyfor reasons that many Members have advancedwe were to take it out? What message would that send to the world about how serious Europe is?

John Gummer: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that those who are concerned about the precise, detailed wording of the Lisbon treaty, lest it should lead to uncovenanted results, ought to be particularly keen on the introduction of these words, because the results to which they will lead will be covenanted? They will mean that the European Union makes this a much more central issue than it would otherwise be.

Hilary Benn: The right hon. Gentleman absolutely makes the case. I pay tribute to the work that he has done over many years to advance the cause of environmental understanding in the UK and in Europe. That is absolutely the argument. Bluntly, it would look really odd if, having gone into this recognising that we all understand the problem, we were then to argue that it should not be in the treaty and that we should take it out. What sort of message would the House be sending out if that were to happen?

Graham Stuart: Does the Secretary of State accept that adding six words to the Lisbon treaty is hardly going to transform the centrality of climate change to European policy making? As he has set out in his speech, the EU already has the powers and the established position to take action on this matter. With respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), whose point I take on board, might not the practical effect of the measure be that international treaties on climate change would need the approval of the European Parliament, which could put a brake on action on climate change, rather than leading to an improvement?

Hilary Benn: Methinks the hon. Gentleman doth protest too much. Yes, this measure will institutionalise what the European Union has already been doingI will say more about that in a momentbut that is not an argument for not putting it in the treaty. If we recognise, as we all doI am sure that that goes for the hon. Gentleman as wellthat climate change is one of the two greatest threats that the world is facing, why would we not want to put in the treaty a reference to dealing with the dangerous consequences of climate change as a strategic objective of the European Union, given the opportunity and given what Europe has done up to now? I have to say, in all honesty, that I really do not get the hon. Gentleman's argument, which is why his speech on the subject will be very interesting to listen to.

David Chaytor: Is it not clear that the suggestion in the Conservatives' amendment that
	the Treaty of Lisbon is effectively irrelevant to the vital issue of climate change
	is completely absurd? Is it not also clear that their attempt to set the purpose and policy of the European Union against the processes of the European Union is also based on a false dichotomy? Without streamlined processes, the European Union would not be able to advance its policies.

Hilary Benn: I agree with my hon. Friend entirely. Indeed, part of the purpose of the Lisbon treaty is to enable Europe effectively to address the challenges that the world faces, and today we are discussing climate change, which is one of the greatest of them all.

Nick Hurd: The Secretary of State has warned the Opposition about the danger of sending baffling messages on climate change. May I put it to him that actions speak a great deal louder than words, and that the decision to expand Heathrow is utterly baffling to my constituents, and to people all around the world? I really must ask him to reconsider it.

Hilary Benn: I will come to the emissions trading scheme and aviation later. The hon. Gentleman will know that a consultation is taking place, and that, in the context of the much lower total of carbon emissions that we will be able to emit if we are to achieve our international objectives, society has a choice about where it decides to make those emissions. It is because of Europe that aviation will now have to make a contribution; it did not have to do so in the past. Aviation has a particular set of characteristics, along with shipping, including the fact that it is international, and we will need to agree on a system for divvying up responsibility for coping with the consequences of those emissions. We now have a vehicle for doing something about that, but only because the European Union has acted.

Michael Weir: I am following what the Secretary of State is saying, but is it not the case that, although aviation will come into phase 3 of the EU emissions trading scheme, there will be an opt-out for industries in competition with businesses in countries without comparable carbon restraints? Does not that mean that international flights from the EU to the United States or the far east, which do not have carbon restraints comparable to those of the ETS, will not be included in the scheme? Will not the scheme therefore affect only flights within the EU?

Hilary Benn: The EU has competence in relation to flights that come in and out of the Union. Frankly, if the International Civil Aviation Organisation were doing its job properly, it would be addressing this issue, because ultimately we need an international solution, as we do in the fight against climate change. That is not an argument for Europe not trying, however, and the significance of the agreement that we reached at the Environment Council in December was that member states said, Yes, we wish to see aviation included. Britain would have liked aviation to come into the scheme earlier than 2012. It looks as though that is when it will happen; it now depends on negotiations with the Parliament. The cap that will be applied, subject to those negotiations, will be based on 2004-06 emissions. That means that any rise in emissions above that level will have to be compensated for by emission reductions elsewhere.
	That example, and the inclusion of climate change in the Lisbon treaty, demonstrate that the development of the EU's policy on the environment reflects our evolution of understanding as to why the environmentand now climate changematter so much. Why did this happen? Very simply, it did so because the countries of Europe realised pretty early on that what we could achieve by working together would be much greater than what we could hope to achieve by going our separate ways. We know that environmental pollution does not respect national borders. It is a statement of the obvious, but there is no means by which we could say, Okay, we'll look after the UK's emissions and you can look after yours. By definition, this is a problem of interdependence. It is a global problem that requires action at international level, and the EU is giving the lead.

Joan Walley: In view of what my right hon. Friend has said about aviation, would he agree that an equal, if not stronger, case needs to be made for shipping? Everything has been concentrated on aviation, and it is now vital to press through the International Maritime Organisation for a proper carbon regime for shipping. That can best be done through the EU.

Hilary Benn: I agree with my hon. Friend entirely. As she will know, the challenge is even more complex in relation to shipping. It is not simply a question of divvying up the emissions according to which port a ship leaves and which one it arrives in. We need to address the question of fuel bunkering; if that happens in international waters, who is responsible for the emissions? We also need to deal with the question of flags of convenience, because if the trading were arranged on that basis, some countries might suddenly find that they had to take responsibility for a lot of emissions. This is a complex issue, and it needs to be dealt with on an international basis.

Hugh Bayley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that people throughout the world, not just those who live in the EU, look to the EU to provide a lead on climate change? In November, the UK branch Commonwealth Parliamentary Association held a conference here in London that was attended by 85 parliamentarians from Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth countries. The conference called for a new international treaty, and for the promotion of the creation of durable carbon markets. The majority of the people there were from non-EU countries, and they look to the EU to provide a lead because our carbon emissions trading scheme is the best and strongest so far developed in the world, and because they see the EU as the most likely base on which to build an international agreement on these matters.

Hilary Benn: I agree with my hon. Friend completely. This is about providing leadership in the world. If we all wait for someone else to act, After you will do for all of us. That is the truth. I congratulate those who took the initiative to call that conference together. Parliamentarians are part of the process by which this change will take place, because we, too, represent the change in awareness and the growth in understanding. As I shall illustrate in relation to Bali, Europe's leadership is hugely significant in this regard, and gives encouragement to others around the world.

Martin Horwood: The Secretary of State has just mentioned the subject of my question. On the international situation, does he not agree that the impact of the Conservatives' amendment would be to undermine the strategic direction that Europe took in Bali, which was so vital to the success of those negotiations in bringing pressure to bear on countries such as the United States to come on board and join the international consensus?

Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point. In truth, people will look at that amendment and think, What? What is that all about? It makes no sense whatever. Let us debate the substance of what we need to do. To focus a lot of attention on saying, Can you please remove the words 'climate change' from the EU treaty? would be greeted with a lot of perplexed looks and exasperation around the globe.

James Clappison: The Secretary of State is being very generous in giving way and he is making his case most eloquently. He has repeatedly referred to what the EU will do, to the EU's actions and to what it is enabled to do. Will he tell us, simply, whether there is any new power in the treaty that was not provided for already?

Hilary Benn: No, there is not. The treaty does not change the shared competence and qualified majority voting applies. HoweverI hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept this, on reflectionit institutionalises the point that the EU, as it moves forward, recognises that tackling climate change will be an important part of what it will need to do.

Elliot Morley: Does that not underline how confusing the Opposition amendment is? Surely, if climate change is important, which we all accept, it should be institutionalised. The debate should be about shifting resources from agricultural subsidies to fighting climate change. To do that, the policy should be part of the institutions of the EU.

Hilary Benn: Of course it should. Given the strength of the argument against the Opposition amendment, maybe some on the Opposition Benches will see the error of their ways.

Peter Ainsworth: I am sorry that Labour Members appear to be confused by the amendment, as it is very straightforward. I am also sorry that the Secretary of State says that the amendment would also remove reference to climate change from the Lisbon treaty. It would do nothing of the kind. The point made by the Opposition's amendment is that
	the Government's priority on climate change in the European context should not be institutional change but the strengthening of measures to drive down greenhouse gas emissions
	there should be actions, not words.

Hilary Benn: I have read those words very carefully. I have also read the amendment that will be debated later, which will be dealt with by my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe, that indeed seeks to remove the words.

Mark Francois: Will the Secretary of State confirm that that is a Back-Bench amendment? Yes or no?

Hilary Benn: I do recognise that; if Opposition Front Benchers are saying that they will not support it, that is fine.  [ Interruption. ] Good, I am pleased to hear that.

Hugh Bayley: Will they be supporting it?

Hilary Benn: I think that those on the Opposition Front Bench have indicated that they will not. It would not make any sense. I do not understand why they are carping about the inclusion of those words which they say make no difference. My argument is that they do make a difference. Since the Opposition are not arguing in favour of the treaty they will, in the end, be understood by the position that they take.
	Every one of us has an interest in a healthy and natural environment. We all recognise the improvements that have been made as a result of the efforts of the EU. Pollution control is a good example. Air quality legislation has been in place since the 1980s and has been responsible for dramatic improvements in air quality across Europe. Sulphur dioxide emissions, which are one thing about which we should be concerned, are down by 68 per cent. compared with 2004. Nitrogen oxides are down 32 per cent. Volatile organic compounds are down 43 per cent. and ammonia is down 22 per cent. That is one example of European action making a difference.
	A second example is the quality of bathing water. In 1976, EU legislation protected bathers from health risks. What has that meant for people in the UK? Significant improvements have been made to the quality of our bathing waters. As a result, nearly all coastal bathing sites consistently meet the European standard. Seven in 10 waters now achieve the tougher guideline standards. Those are two examples of Europe acting to improve our environment. They both represent real progress.

Barry Sheerman: Some of us heard an interesting speaker from Surfers Against Sewage last night, not far from this House. The speaker pointed out that if it had not been for European regulation, Surfers Against Sewage would never have achieved what it has as a successful pressure group that has changed the quality of sea water around our country. Does the Secretary of State agree that every environmental group that I talk to believes that nothing would have happened in this country without leadership from Europe?

Hilary Benn: That is entirely the case. Europe has been a force for good in improving the quality of our environment. That is the truth. Those who carp at the EU and do not wish it to have those responsibilities and powers must then accept the consequence of the lack of action that would have happened if Europe had not taken the lead. That is precisely the reason that we need Europe to act on climate change. I would describe the Lisbon treaty as a further step in the journey in protecting the environment for us all.
	The Prime Minister said in November last year that our membership of the EU
	gives us and 26 other countries the unique opportunity to work together on economic, environmental and security challenges.
	We all know that dangerous climate change is all three of those challenges and more. One has only to think for a moment about the possible consequences of reduced water availability in the world. What will we do when human beings start to fight each other about water? How will we cope with the consequences for crop yields of increased temperature? What will we do as a world when large numbers of people begin to move around the globe in pursuit of a safe place to live, because they cannot live where they lived previously as dangerous climate change has rendered their homes uninhabitable? I and other hon. Members have seen with our own eyes people who are experiencing that precise situation in the developing world.
	The truth is that the world has come a long way since 1988, when the World Meteorological Organisation and the UN Environment Programme established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. At that point, few people were aware of what was going on, and in the years since things have changed dramatically. The science is no longer in doubt. Climate change is happening, and it is happening fast. Time is short and the world must act now.
	The UK Government have played an important part in leading that debate in the EU and internationally. After all, in 1998 the UK Government, during our presidency, led the EU in pushing for the historic Kyoto agreement. The EU emissions trading scheme is based on the UK's domestic scheme, which started three years earlier. We were the first country in the world to do that. The EU picked it up and, as has been said, it is now the bedrock of the EU's efforts to reduce emissions by putting a price on carbon. The emissions trading scheme is the largest scheme of its kind in the world and covers the largest emitters, who produce almost half the EU's CO2 emissions. We want other sectors to be included in the scheme, which is precisely why we pressed for aviation to be included. That was agreed at the Environment Council in December.

Graham Stuart: I am extremely grateful to the Secretary of State, who is as generous as ever in giving way. The six wordsalmost an asidein the Lisbon treaty that refer to climate change are:
	and in particular combating climate change.
	Of all the strands in the comprehensive treaty, which covers so many areas of law and activity in the EU, that must be the slightest reference to any subject. Today is being spent trying to deflect attention away from the failure to provide the people of this country with a say on the Lisbon treaty by dressing it up as an important step in climate change. I put it to the Secretary of State, who is known for his honesty in this House, that that is nothing more than a charade. It is not giving a genuine impression.

Hilary Benn: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, but in preparing for the debate and standing at the Dispatch Box today I am not taking part in a charade, whatever he is doing. I do not accept the argument. However, maybe he is arguing that there should be a bigger reference to climate change in the Lisbon treaty. Is he?

Graham Stuart: I would have thought that as we are devoting a day to considering the Lisbon treaty as it relates to climate change, it would deserve a much bigger entry if it was felt to be important. We have already said that we do not think that it needs such an entry. Why are the Government spending this time on discussing six words? The EU has the powers. The point that we Conservatives will be making today is that it is action that counts. Our frustration and annoyance is caused by the lack of action and the Government's desire to play politics by using climate change as a cover.

Hilary Benn: I am not trying to use climate change as a cover for anything at all. I was in the middle of pointing out that the EU is already getting on with it, hence why argue with the words in the treaty? We were the first country to put climate change at the heart of a G8 presidency and to argue that there should be a debate on climate change in the Security Council. We were the first country in the world, as a member of the European Union, to put together a Climate Change Bill. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the Climate Change Bill, which is being considered in the other place, is an historic piece of legislation that will make us the first country in the world to provide for a legally binding, long-term framework to cut CO2 emissions. That UK commitment reflects Europe's commitment. EU member states, as well as other countries throughout the world, are watching what we are doing in the United Kingdom with great interest.

John Gummer: Given that the Climate Change Bill was the product of Opposition pressure and Government willingness, and is thus a commonly supported Bill, does the Secretary of State agree that we are setting an important example throughout the world and that that ought to be the way in which we proceed on all these matters?

Hilary Benn: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman absolutely. All our thinking has evolved. That is reflected in the politics of all the parties of which we are proud to be members and the campaigns of non-governmental organisationsFriends of the Earth has worked particularly hard. The truth is that whoever is in government in any country in the world, they will have to deal with this threat, so we all have a shared interest in ensuring that we have the right framework, the right politics and, above all, the right action to get emissions down.

Colin Challen: Brevity is not necessarily an indication of substance. The phrase
	all men shall be free
	underpinned the anti-slavery movement, which shows that even five words can achieve a great deal. To return to the substance of the debate, another phrase is commerce always outbids conservation, and it bothers me that aviation is being grandfathered. All other sectors in the ETS have a baseline of 1990, so why should aviation have 14 years' growth grandfathered? Surely all other sectors in the ETS should be unhappy with that decision.

Hilary Benn: The straight answer to my hon. Friend's point is that that was what the Council of Ministers was able to reach agreement on in the end. However, I am not sure that I agree that commerce will always trump conservation. In the development of our understanding of dangerous climate change, it is striking that the business community gets it, too. Even in the relatively short time that I have been in this job, I have seen the CBI taskforce report and listened to business people from around the world, especially from the UK and Europe. I pay tribute to Nick Stern, because if one was to put a finger on one bit of work that has done more than any other to change attitudes in the business community and broader society, it would be his fantastic report. He said very simply, If you don't get the moral case and you're not wholly persuaded by the science, just have a look at the numbers. People who understand numbers for a living can see that a case is being made when someone says, Given a choice between a low cost and a much higher one, which do you fancy pursuing?

Martin Salter: Does the Secretary of State agree that Conservative Members would be able to make a more valid contribution if they focused on other aspects of the treaty relating to climate change more than on the six words that have presumably been crayoned on to their briefing notes for them? The Lisbon treaty clearly talks about the sustainable development of Europe, energy efficiency and new agreements on renewable forms of energy. Are they not crucial factors in tackling climate change?

Hilary Benn: They certainly are. If hon. Members read article 191 in the consolidated texts, they will find all those points. As we have come to learn, we need to see all these things in the round.

Martin Horwood: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Hilary Benn: I want to make a little more progress because many hon. Members wish to speak and I want to give them as much time as possible.
	President Barroso himself has acknowledged the growing public recognition of the dangers posed by climate change. He says:
	It therefore deserves and demands to be seen as one of the new cornerstones of the EU's raison d'tre.
	I could not agree more, and that is what the treaty will achieve. That is reflected by the fact that, last spring, the European Council agreed an ambitious set of targets on carbon emissions, renewable energy and biofuels to push forwards the transition. Germany, as G8 president, played a role in getting agreement at Heiligendamm on the need for cuts in emissions, which was an example of European leadership.
	In December, Europe's united front in support of an agreement at the climate change negotiations in Bali played an important part in achieving a breakthrough. Something was achieved at Bali that had not seemed possible before, namely that all countries in the worldfrom the United States of America to developing countriesrecognised the science and the need to make deep cuts in emissions, and agreed that we needed to negotiate a new climate deal over the next two years. On 23 January, the European Commission published legislative proposals in the climate and energy package that will put the emissions trading scheme at the heart of EU policy. An EU-wide central cap is being established for the first time precisely because Europe is learning from the experience of phase 1 of the ETS that if the cap is not right, progress will not be made.

Rob Marris: Given that, according to the House of Commons Library, per capita CO2 emissions in the United Kingdom have increased this century, will my right hon. Friend say a little more about what articles 191 and 192 will do to assist us to adapt to climate change, on which Stern was particularly strong? There is a need not only to deal with the causes, important though that isit has been a major focus of my right hon. Friend's speechbut to say something about the inevitable consequences that he realises are already happening and that will get worse in the future.

Hilary Benn: The last point in article 191.1 refers to
	promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems.
	Such problems are not just those relating to combating climate change, but those that will flow from climate change, such as the availability of water, crop yields and diseases that will spread to parts of the world in which they have not been found before. There must be adaptation now, because whatever we agree on mitigation, we will have to adapt to the changes that are irrevocably in the system.
	The EU has set ambitious targets on renewables for member states. By demonstrating its leadership, it has said that if there is a global deal, the EU will increase its commitment further and cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 per cent. by 2020.

James Clappison: I agree with many of the general points that the Secretary of State is making. On the point raised by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), I have had a quick look at article 174 in the previous treaty, which seems to include an almost identical provision to that to which the Secretary of State referred in article 191, except for the words to do with climate change. Is that the case?

Hilary Benn: What is new is the inclusion of the strategic objective of addressing climate change, which we should all welcome.
	Europe is providing leadership, and its 27 voices are giving the same message to citizens, businesses and our global partners. Europe, this country and the world need to concentrate on five things if we are to deal with the problem. First, now that we have the deal at Bali, we need to agree on a goal.

Peter Ainsworth: That would be a start.

Hilary Benn: Well, Europe has made a start because it has a goala temperature target. There is a question of what temperature increase the world thinks that we can live with and what we must avoid. Europe's target is no more than 2C, which will require at least a 50 per cent. reduction in global emissions from 1990 levels across the world. We must get agreement, because once there is agreement on a goal, we can look at all the commitments from around the world that are on the table. We can then add them up and decide whether they will be sufficient. We know that they are not sufficient to deal with the task at the moment.
	Secondly, we need bigger and more ambitious commitments from developed countries. That is why Europe's commitment is important and why we need all the rich developed nations, including the largest economy in the world, to make binding commitments. Thirdly, we need a strong global carbon market, because putting a price on what is bad for the climate will encourage people to invest in what is better for the climate. We have to open up those markets to all countries, and the fact that the EU ETS is the largest of all the markets puts Europe in a strong position to ensure that that happens. As other trading schemes emerge in other parts of the globe, one of our tasks is to enable them all to fit together, so that we do not end up withif I can put it this waya VHS trading scheme in one place and a Betamax trading scheme in another, or different currencies; we need to be able to connect the schemes together.
	Fourthly, we need a deal that is fair. This is fundamentally a matter of global social justice. We now learn that we have a finite resource that the world can cope with: CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions. The world can only take so much, so the question is how we divide that up fairly and equitably, both to save the planet and to lift every citizen out of poverty in the same century. That is why we need measurable contributions from developed countries, but we also have to show that those countries are willing to provide financial support, help with technology, assistance to avoid deforestation and support for adaptation to developing countries. Fifthly and finally, we need an agreement that covers all countries and all emissions and does enough to solve the problem.
	That, in summary, is the task that the negotiations between now and Copenhagen have to achieve. The truth is that Europe alone cannot ensure that we get that deal in Copenhagen; it depends on many other countries, too. But with the Lisbon treaty acknowledging Europe's rolethat is what it does, and so it shouldwe now have a firm basis on which to proceed. What the Lisbon treaty has to say on climate change recognises reality and embraces practical politics, and I think that the House should support it.

Peter Ainsworth: I beg to move, To leave out from 'House' to end and add
	'notes that the Treaty of Lisbon makes no substantive changes to EU competence on climate change; agrees with the Foreign Secretary that climate change agreements already reached by the EU have done more to show the relevance of the European Union than any amount of institutional tinkering; believes that the Treaty of Lisbon is effectively irrelevant to the vital issue of climate change; and concludes that the Government's priority on climate change in the European context should not be institutional change but the strengthening of measures to drive down greenhouse gas emissions.'.
	Conservatives always welcome the opportunity to speak in this House on the vital importance of tackling climate change. As the debates on the Lisbon treaty are demonstrating, we also welcome opportunities to speak on the role and influence of the European Union in the political and daily life of this country. Indeed, some hon. Members on both sides of the House seem to show an insatiable appetite for debating matters European. We are happy to debate climate change and our relationship with the European Union.
	The other place has happily been debating the Climate Change Bill in recent weeks, and I am pleased to note how the Opposition have succeeded in persuading the Government to toughen up some key provisions of that Bill. We look forward to its arrival in this House in the near future. If we end up with a robust Climate Change Billone that really changes the mindset in Whitehall and in Westminsterit will be a great example of what a national Parliament can achieve.
	There will be plenty of opportunities to debate climate change in the weeks ahead, and that is a good thing, given that climate change is the greatest threat we face. It would be surprising indeed if we were not debating it. I sense that, despite the fact that the science is still disputed by some, there is a real hunger for clarity and leadership on climate change, which affects all of us, whatever our job, wherever we live, whatever our income and whatever our faith. It demands a new politics.

Greg Knight: Does my hon. Friend share my anger and concern that in the past few days, despite sensible opposition by Her Majesty's Government, the European Union has decreed that from 2011 all motor cars will have to have daytime running lights? Is he aware that, in answer to a parliamentary question that I tabled, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), revealed that that will result in an increase in fuel consumption of about 5 per cent.? Is not that a good example of what is rotten in the European Unionthe blanket, one-size-must-fit-all approach, which in this instance will lead to an unnecessary imposition on the British motorist and will increase emissions?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That was more like a speech than an intervention.

Peter Ainsworth: My right hon. Friend will no doubt have an opportunity to catch your eye later, Mr. Speaker, but he makes a good point. I shall later make some positive remarks about the role that the EU can play in combating environmental challenges and climate change, but producing a directive requiring all cars to keep their headlights on at all times is precisely the sort of thing that gets under people's skin and annoys them about the EU. I know that Ministers have resisted that measure. The EU maintains that it will increase fuel use and carbon emissions by only 0.3 per cent., but the Government's position is that it will increase them by 5 per cent. That is wholly unacceptable and counter-productive, and an example of what could go wrong if we do not persuade Europe to engage in the new politics that I just mentioned.

Steve Webb: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman on the need for a new politics and consensus on climate change. Can he explain why this week Conservative peers voted against having a target of an 80 per cent. cut in CO2 emissions?

Peter Ainsworth: My understanding is that Conservative peers abstained on that vote. However, I am pleased by the co-operation that has been taking place between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives in the other place. The first key task set out by the Secretary of State was to keep the increase in global average temperatures to less than 2 C. I shall be interested to hear the Minister who sums up this debate explain why Government peers voted against Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers on making that task a primary purpose of the Climate Change Bill.

Colin Challen: In an intervention, the hon. Gentleman said that the Conservative amendment was all about adding substance and not flitting about with a few airy-fairy words. In terms of substance, therefore, will he tell us how the Conservatives would raise the price of carbon in the emissions trading scheme to a level that might deter people from flying?

Peter Ainsworth: If the hon. Gentleman is patient, he will hear me discuss the ETS later in my speech.

Martin Caton: Just before the previous interventions, the hon. Gentleman said that climate change affects us all, but does he agree that it does not affect us all equally? It will have the greatest impact on the poorest people in the poorest parts of the world. In that sense, climate change is not only an environmental issue, but a social justice issue.

Peter Ainsworth: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. If the House will allow me to make progress, I am about to touch on that very point.
	We need a new politics in the face of an unprecedented challenge. Our approach must not be tactical or short term, geared toward electoral advantage; it must be long term. We do not need insular and self-interested policies; we must be global and generous. As the hon. Gentleman said, climate change is not just an environmental or economic challenge. It is about our economy and the world's, our society and some of the most vulnerable societies in the world. Ultimately, it is very possibly about our ability to survive at all.
	Climate change needs to be debated but, above all, it needs action. So far, the Government have been long on words but desperately short on effective action: the rhetoric and the reality are far removed. This country's climate change emissions have increased since 1997, and now key environmental projects are threatened by the latest consequences of DEFRA's financial difficulties. Given the absence of dispute between the main political parties on the seriousness of the threat of climate change, it is astonishing that so little progress has been made towards dealing with the problem.
	What I have been struggling to understand is why we have been invited to discuss climate change here and now, in the debate on the Lisbon treaty. The Lisbon treaty matters, too. It might not literally be a matter of life and death, which is what irreversible climate change might ultimately become, but it does go to the heart of how we are governed, our democratic values and our right to determine our own future in years to come. It is uncomfortable to say this, but I really think that the fact that the Government have devoted so much time to the issue of climate change in debates on the Lisbon treaty betrays a serious misjudgement of the importance of both issues. It may betray something worse: a cynical willingness to use the issue of climate change as a decoy, a means of avoiding more thorough debate about the constitutional implications of the Lisbon treaty.
	We have already heard how many words in the Lisbon treaty are devoted to the issue of climate change: six.  [ Interruption. ] When I say six, I mean literally that there are no more than six words in the whole treaty devoted to the issue of climate change, and I shall quote them:
	and in particular combating climate change.
	It is hardly groundbreaking stuff. There is nothing in those six words or anywhere else in the treaty that will help our collective efforts  [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have hon. Members waving documents about in the Chamber.

Peter Ainsworth: What has happened is that the Government have dedicated three and a half hours today to discussing those six words. That is 35 minutes a word, or just over five minutes a letter. I suppose that I should be grateful that in this long series of debates, I am probably unique among Conservative spokesmen in not having to complain about any new powers arising from the treaty of Lisbon, but I must ask whether this is the most productive use of the House's time.
	Do the Government think that focusing on a thematic issue such as climate change, which they identify correctly as something that the public care about, enables them to avoid a more technical debate on the parts of the treaty that actually make important changes to our political relationship within Europe? Why have they arranged this particular debate on this subject?

Several hon. Members: rose

Peter Ainsworth: I will give way to any hon. Gentleman from the Labour party who can answer that question.

Paddy Tipping: The hon. Gentleman said earlier that actions speak louder than words. Are not the important vehicles for environmental changemeasures providing for clean water, how we look after our landscape, how we dispose of our waste, climate changebeing driven by Europe? We ought to be supporting them rather than carping about today's debate.

Peter Ainsworth: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I shall come to some of those issues and some of the positive things that Europe has done to encourage a better environment for all of us.

Several hon. Members: rose

Peter Ainsworth: I shall give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), but then I must make progress.

John Gummer: Is my hon. Friend not being rather kind to the Government? The truth is that it would be perfectly proper to have a whole day's debate on climate change under the Lisbon treatyit really is a very important additionif we had had a proper debate on defence or a whole range of other matters in the Lisbon treaty. What worries me is that it is not the Secretary of State's fault. The fault lies in the Government's unwillingness to arrange for proper line-by-line debate on the treaty. Those of us who are deeply opposed to referendums should be most concerned that we ought to have had that debate.

Peter Ainsworth: My right hon. Friend makes a compelling and important point. I understand that none of the amendments dealing with defence was debated at all, which is a disgrace. I suggest to him that there may be another and rather more scurrilous plan at work: I suspect that somebody in some Government office thought it might be a cunning wheeze to table the motion that we are debating in order to paint the Conservatives' considered opposition to the Lisbon treaty as being incompatible with support for collective EU action on climate change. If so, that is not only cynical but ignorant.

Hugh Bayley: The question is whether the Conservative party speaks with one voice. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said how important it was for the EU to have a competence in climate change. Amendment No. 121 to the European Union (Amendment) Bill, tabled by some very senior Conservativesincluding a former party leader, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), and a former Cabinet Minister, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)says that the EU should have no say at all on climate change. Does that not show that the hon. Gentleman's party is deeply divided and unable to provide leadership on Europe?

Peter Ainsworth: The evidence of these debates has been that the divisions are all on the other side of the House. I agree strongly with my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal.
	The hon. Gentleman ought to know that the EU already has a competence in climate change; that is exactly my point. The provisions of the Lisbon treaty are about the distribution of power between the EU and its member states, and how the EU is organised. The treaty has been deliberately designed, some would say, to be as hard as possible to understand, which is presumably why the Government hope that they can renege on their pledge to hold a referendum, although I remind the Secretary of State that people notice when politicians fail to keep their election promises.
	However, when the EU does useful things, it can play an important role, not least in tackling climate change. Again, it is about actions and not words:
	if the European Union is to show itself to be useful, it need not reform its institutions or become obsessed with institutional reform; rather, it needs to get on with tackling the big issues that people recognise cannot be addressed at national level.
	Those are the words of the Foreign Secretary.

David Chaytor: If the hon. Gentleman is opposed to the provisions in the treaty relating to the reform of institutions, and if he argues that reform is irrelevant to the issue of climate change, surely he should be able to stand at the Dispatch Box and explain how a six-month rotating presidency shared among 27 member states can possibly advance climate change policy more effectively than the provisions in the treaty.

Peter Ainsworth: It does not need a treaty to take effective action on climate change. I refer the hon. Gentleman, whom I respect greatly and whose knowledge of environmental matters is impressive, to the further remarks of his own Foreign Secretary in December:
	People sometimes say, 'You can't address those issues unless you reform the institutions,' but to take the topical example of climate change...if you look at the conclusions of the March 2006 European Council, which offer a genuine leadership role for Europe on climate change issues and international negotiations, you will realise that they have done more to show the relevance of the European Union than any amount of institutional tinkering.
	That is exactly the point that I am making. I am at one with the Foreign Secretary on the matter.

Martin Horwood: The hon. Gentleman has just made the extraordinary statement that it does not need a treaty to take action on climate change. Does he seriously think that something as complex as the emissions trading scheme could possibly have been established among 27 member states without the offices of the European Union, which the treaty will reinforce?

Peter Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I should have said a new treaty, as the existing provisions on climate change are, of course, undertaken through the treaty of Rome, and will not be changed by the Lisbon treaty.
	I agree completely with the Foreign Secretary. We do not need more institutional meddling to deal with climate change; we need better policies and greater political will. The Foreign Secretary's remarks serve only to emphasise how irrelevant today's motion is. It is a distraction not only from the substantive issue of how to meet our carbon emissions reduction targets but from the issues of real relevance to the Lisbon treaty, such as defence and foreign policy.
	The EU already has the power to tackle climate change. For instance, article 175 of the treaty establishing the European Community has already been used as a basis for the Community to pass many measures relating to climate change, which we have supported. Ratifying the Kyoto protocol at the European Community level did not need the Lisbon treaty. Adopting a binding decision on implementing the Kyoto protocol in the EU did not need the Lisbon treaty. Adopting a directive setting up the emissions trading scheme did not need the Lisbon treaty. Adopting a directive setting up a minimum target of 5.75 per cent. for vehicle fuel from biofuels by the end of 2010I might have more to say about that in a momentdid not need the Lisbon treaty. So what is the Lisbon treaty offering us that will further enhance our collective European ability to tackle climate change?

Alan Whitehead: rose

Peter Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman has been patient, so I shall give way.

Alan Whitehead: I have been trying to follow the logic of the hon. Gentleman's presentation for some time. If he does not think that the six words on climate change in the Lisbon treaty are at all relevant, does it mean that the 15 words on energy efficiency and renewable energy, and the words on sustainability in article 3, are not relevant? Would he excise all of them from the new treaty as, by his logic, none of them makes any difference?

Peter Ainsworth: Almost all the words to which the hon. Gentleman refers are imported from other treaties. My point is that the matters are not taken forward by the Lisbon treaty. I can only refer him back to the comments made by the Foreign Secretary.

Martin Horwood: rose

Peter Ainsworth: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, and then I really will make progress.

Martin Horwood: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He may not know this, but his party's foreign affairs spokesman, the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), suggested amendments to the Bill that would have removed energy from the shared competences. That would not leave us with the status quo that he describes, but would put European climate change policy into reverse.

Peter Ainsworth: I want to make it absolutely clear, with the Foreign Secretary's explicit endorsement, that our opposition to the Lisbon treaty does not in any way compromise our commitment to tackling climate change or our belief in the EU's role in enhancing environmental protection, both in our country and across Europe and the world. In fact, the Conservative party has long considered the environment to be one of the areas where pan-European co-operation makes eminent good sense. For example, it makes eminent good sense, when legislating to improve the energy efficiency of goods sold in Europe, to do so for a single market of 300 million people, rather than having a patchwork of different product standards in different countries. We need to harness the market power of the EU to drive up product standards across the world. However, it also makes sense to legislate in a non-prescriptive fashionto say, Yes, we should have a common quality standard across the EU, but each member state can decide how it wishes to implement that standard. We do not support a one-size-fits-all approach.
	I cite as an example the packaging directive, which is now an important part of our national effort on climate change and resource efficiency. It was introduced under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal. It was designed to allow each state to decide its own implementation mechanisms. In government, we chose to base the implementation of the directive on a market mechanism and, as a result, last year alone the cost of implementing it in the United Kingdom was 10 times less than it was in Germany, where it was decided to use a different approach. We agree with common standards, but not with top-down prescriptive implementation.
	It should be noted that the majority of the energy labelling directives and minimum efficiency performance directives, which have resulted in significant European energy efficiency improvements, particularly for white goods, began in the early to mid-1990s under Conservative Governments. On broader environmental issues such as wildlife and habitats protection, it was a Conservative Government who adopted the birds directive and the habitats directive, which have ensured that many of our loved wild creatures and places will continue to prosper. Those directives were incorporated in our law through the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and our habitats regulations.
	Last month, we endorsed the EU climate change package announcement. We welcomed the economic opportunity inherent in the UK achieving our target of 15 per cent. renewable energy by 2020. The target means that we have a steep mountain to climb in the next 12 years, given that we are currently at 2 per cent., but responsibility for that weak position can be directly attributed to the piecemeal, inadequate policy mechanisms employed by the Government. Britain has the finest natural resourceswind, wave and tidein Europe. We ought to be the Saudi Arabia of renewable energy, yet we are currently wallowing second to last in the EU league table, ahead of only Malta.
	Our country has a strong entrepreneurial spirit and unrivalled access to financial capital in the City of London. We have some of the finest research universities in the world, where green technologies are being developed that could allow Britain to have first-mover advantage in the new energy economy. In fact, this afternoon my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), the shadow Chancellor, will speak at one of our leading research centres, Imperial college, on that very issuehow the UK can take a global lead in green technology. We want to make it a policy priority to empower our entrepreneurs, our markets, our industry and our academic talent to engage in and benefit from the decarbonisation of our economy.
	The UK certainly needs far better policy instruments than those currently on offer from the Government. I do not question the sincerity of the Government's attempts to tackle climate change; it is their competence that is the problem. Their international leadership on the issue has been commendable, particularly under the former Prime Minister. It is not on the whole their approach to international and EU agreements that has been weak. I say on the whole because there has been the occasional lapse; for example, it was disappointing to see British Ministers in Europe supporting the polluters over proposals to phase out hydrofluorocarbons.
	It is the Government's domestic policies that have let them down. Those policies have been lacklustre and not sufficiently joined-up. As I said earlier, carbon emissions are greater than when the Government took office 10 years ago. The Labour manifesto commitment to reduce carbon emissions by 20 per cent. by 2010 has been quietly dropped. The support mechanism for large-scale renewable technologies has primarily benefited onshore wind power and landfill gas generation, to the neglect of other technologies further up the cost curve, many of which could play a major role in our low-carbon future, and particularly in microgeneration. That is why the Conservative party recently announced its feed-in tariff policy, which I commend to the Secretary of State. I hope that he is seriously considering it.
	Feed-in tariffs have worked to great effect in other EU countries, particularly Germany, which now boasts up to 300,000 people working in the renewables industry. Germany has 10 times the installed wind energy capacity of Britain, and 200 times as much solar capacity. The House will observe that Germany is neither 10 times windier nor 200 times sunnier than the United Kingdom, yet Germany is benefiting from those technologies, and we are falling behind.

Graham Stuart: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the energy sector, the biggest challenge that climate change presents to the world is the need to capture the carbon produced by coal-fired power stations, including those that are coming on-stream in large numbers every week? Does he agree that it is disappointing that the Government have failed to drive forward the carbon capture and storage agenda, despite having said back in 2003 that they would move forward on the issue as a matter of urgency, given that it is one of the biggest technical problems that needs to be solved?

Peter Ainsworth: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. It was a disaster last year when, because of the Government's failure to act, BP pulled its investment in a carbon capture and storage project. Of course, there is concern among Members on both sides of the House about proposals for a huge, new coal-fired power station in Kingsnorth in Kent. We have made it clear that we are seriously concerned about providing large-scale new capacity for coal when we cannot capture and store the carbon associated with it. If we cannot do that, it is simply not a safe technology, in view of climate change.

David Kidney: On the difference between wind developments in the UK and Germany, more than 100 onshore wind developments in this country are stuck in the planning system. How many of the councils holding them up are Conservative controlled, and what assessment has the hon. Gentleman made of the differences between the German planning system and ours? Will he say, at the Dispatch Box, that those Conservative councils ought to get on with approving wind developments?

Peter Ainsworth: The problemI have touched on this alreadyis that the structure of the renewables obligation means that it drives investment into the nearest, most developed technologies, which are landfill gas and onshore wind. We all understand that there are strong feelings on both sides of the arguments, because of the visual intrusion and so on, but as the hon. Gentleman may know, as a result of planning difficulties, huge quantities of money are stuck in the system instead of being spent on renewables, which is a shame. The answer is not to impose wind farms on communities that do not want them, but to reform the way we support the renewables industry to develop less controversial forms of technology.
	The Conservative party has welcomed the EU-wide plan for a 20 per cent. reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, rising to 30 per cent. when an international agreement is reached. We expressed, and continue to express, our serious concerns about the sustainability of the EU-wide biofuels agreement, which is also part of the package. Last month, the Environmental Audit Committee called for a moratorium on both EU and UK biofuels targets. The Committee's report highlights the fact that demand for biofuels is already exacerbating the destruction of crucial rainforests in Indonesia and Malaysia. It is sheer madness to cut down the rainforest or threaten food security in the name of the environment.
	We took a principled stand on the issue last year when we voted against the Government's renewable transport fuel obligation for its failure to include sustainability criteria until at least 2011. We hold the same position in respect of the EU target of 10 per cent. biofuels by 2020. I hope that Ministers will go to Europe and argue the case that no mandatory biofuel targets be included in the renewable energy directive until a working sustainability criteria basis has been established.
	I turn briefly to the EU emissions trading scheme. It is not the be-all and end-all of climate change policy, as the Government sometimes seem to imply. It is not good enough to say that we can massively expand aviation capacity and not worry about the carbon implications because at some future date it will all be included in the ETS. A properly functioning scheme could play a vital role in driving down carbon emissions within the European Union.
	It is widely accepted that phase 1 has been a failure in reducing emissions significantly. Too many credits were handed out for free, which meant handing the industry a licence to pollute, and the costs were passed on to the consumer. That gifted energy companies more than 1 billion in windfall profits. That was not the object of the exercise. However, that was a political failure, not a market failure. Phase 1 has not driven innovationwith a market price of 10 cents a tonne of carbon, it will never do thatbut it has proved that it is possible to devise a mechanism that could work in the future, and phase 2 already looks more promising. That is largely to do with the introduction of more auctioning. We believe that in phase 3 we should push towards 100 per cent. auctioning of those permits to pollute. If we bring the market in on the ground floor of the ETS, we will begin to get some real change and a real price in carbon, which comes back to the point that the hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell (Colin Challen) made earlier.

Colin Challen: rose

Peter Ainsworth: I am about to finish, so if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way again.
	In conclusion, the Opposition recognise that there is a need to work at every level to tackle the threat of climate change. There are changes that we can all make to the way we live our lives. There is an important role for local government, and of course for national Government. We should be leading by example and setting a long-term framework to give confidence to the public and, importantly, to investors in the benefits of green growth. There is, as I hope I have made clear, a positive role to be played by the European Union. In the end the solutions to the issue of climate change will have to be found at a global level, because we are all in it together.

Hugh Bayley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not want to misuse a point of order by interrupting the speech of the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth). You admonished me for seeking to show the hon. Gentleman the two pages of the treaty which deal with climate change. Although it is true that the treaty adds the six words and in particular combating climate

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to choke the hon. Gentleman off so early, but we are taking time up from the debate. I did not admonish him for showing the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth); I admonished him for waving documents in the Chamber, which is not to be encouraged.

Elliot Morley: I welcome the opportunity to discuss climate change and to do so in the context of the Lisbon treaty. The treaty is important, as is the fact that climate change is mentioned in the treaty and has been institutionalised. The amalgamation of existing treaties and of existing and new wording on sustainable development, energy and waste is crucial if we are to deal effectively with climate change.
	I welcome some of the comments made by the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), particularly those about the role of the EU. The environment is one of the issues on which the EU has enjoyed particular success. There is no doubt that EU regulations have driven huge improvements in water quality, waste water treatment and air quality. Without the influence of the EU, individual member states would never have taken those actions or would not have taken them to the same extent. There are Opposition Members who have sensible views on these matters and sensible comments to make, but it disappoints me that, because of its divisiveness, the subject of Europe seems to bring about some kind of paralysis in the Conservative party.
	Europe is a power for good. Of course it is not perfect, and there is a need for change and for reform. The Lisbon treaty is an important step forward in that reform. I do not understand the Opposition amendment. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that it does not make sense. Institutional reform is essential for delivery and for achieving effective outcomes. For example, the Lisbon treaty extends qualified majority voting. Generally speaking, an extension of QMV is in the interests of our country.
	I spent many years in the Council of Ministers negotiating on behalf of the United Kingdom, and in my experience the UK usually sat within a consensus in Europe, but with so many member states it is impossible to get 100 per cent. support. There will always be one or two countries that, for various reasons, have differences. An extension of qualified majority voting therefore makes absolute sense, and makes sense in the context of the environment.
	In the same way, extending the democratic role of the European Parliament makes sense. I have always thought of the European Parliament as a weak institution. Giving it more democratic accountability and introducing more checks and balances over the Commission and the Executive are desirable outcomes of the treaty. That is why it is a mistake to say that institutional reform does not make sense in this area.
	I endorse the sensible comments made by the Secretary of State about the leadership of the European Union. I attended the United Nations forum on the climate change convention at Buenos Aires. If not for the European Union, Buenos Aires would have been an utter failure. The EU managed to salvage a useful outcome from that meeting. I attended the crucial Montreal meeting. There is no doubt that the leadership given by the EUunder the UK presidency, incidentallygave impetus to a positive outcome. As my right hon. Friend said, at the recent Bali meeting the EU played a crucial role in achieving a positive outcome by moving forward on a post-2020 framework.

John Gummer: Will the right hon. Gentleman go back a stage further and accept that the Kyoto treaty would never have come about, had it not been for the European Union?

Elliot Morley: Yes, I accept that, although the United Kingdom played an important role in those negotiations. Nevertheless, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the EU is a powerful influence in such international negotiations. That is why we should harness the EU as a positive force. It does no good to send the signals that we are getting from the debate, such as that including climate change in a new treaty is not important. We should support progressive change in the EU and harness the EU as a force for good and for change, which it can be.
	I recognise the argument about whether changes are needed. I freely concede that the first phase of the European emissions trading scheme has not been the success that it should be because of over-allocation and, mainly, of giving in to the lobbying of vested interests by member states. Having said that, I should point out that the scheme has brought together 27 countries in the only worldwide trading scheme of its kind and I believe that it will form the nucleus of future carbon trading. Putting it in place has been a tremendous success. Like the hon. Member for East Surrey, I believe that it can be reformed in due course.
	As I mentioned briefly in my intervention, it is important that the issue is mentioned in the context of institutional change under the Lisbon treaty. There must be changes in the EU's focus and we must move from the position in which half the EU budget is spent on agricultural subsidies. That does not make any senseit is a negative influence on world trade and a distortion for many agrarian economies internationally. We should be progressively moving from those subsidies and put the funding into more productive areas, such as agri-environment programmes and the promotion of adaptation and of measures to combat climate change. We need such reforms, and that is why such issues need to be mentioned in a new treaty such as the Lisbon treaty.
	Biofuel targets have had a potentially perverse outcome, and I recognise what the hon. Member for East Surrey said about that. Biofuels have an important role to play, but not enough thought has been given to the environmental consequences of targets within the EU. It is certainly inexcusable to push ahead without a proper certification mechanism.
	I have just come back from the global legislators forum in Brasilia, where I was joined by Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members of this House. There was a very good agreement with the Brazilians on a biofuels policy based on certification and sustainable development. I will write to the Secretary of State about the outcome of the conferencethere were discussions about biofuels and forestry, and proposals on a post-2012 framework that he might find interesting. It was good to bring together 80 legislators from the G8 plus 5 countries, African countries that export timber, and Bangladesh, and to get that level of agreement. It was also good to listen to President Lula's thoughts on the issues.
	This welcome debate is about an important issue. The Government position of emphasising climate change in the Lisbon treaty is absolutely right. As the NGOs have rightly said, the treaty provides many benefits. We should have a more positive approach to it, rather than the negative, confusing and wrong signals that have come from the Opposition.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the whole House realises that the eight-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches is now in operation.

Jo Swinson: It is a particular pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who has distinguished ministerial experience of these issues; I welcome the benefit that his contribution brought to the debate.
	Some say that these many days of European debates are a little like Groundhog Day, given that the same things are repeated over and again. I have attended the debates regularly, and I like to be a keen observer. I have noticed that there are nuanced differences in the spirit of the debate on the different days; some subjects are a little controversial, but others are discussed in a more consensual tone. I had high hopes that today's debate on climate change might err more towards consensus and have more agreement than we have managed so far.
	The Conservative Back-Bench amendment is clearly ridiculous: to argue that it would be better to remove references to climate change in the treaty does not stack up, and I am pleased that the Conservative Front-Bench team has said that it will not support it. However, the notion that action is more important than words is right, although it is not the only thingpolitical priorities also send an important signal, so having the references in the treaty is welcome.
	The Conservatives must recognise the importance of Europe in tackling climate change. They have anti-European sentiments, but must recognise that they cannot have it both ways.
	I think from the point of view of the Conservative party, pursuing the green line is all talk and no action
	those are not my words, but those of the former chair of the European Parliament environment committee, the Conservative MEP Caroline Jackson.
	Successive treaties have developed EU environmental powerand rightly so, as the global environmental challenges that we face clearly require international co-operation. It is therefore very welcome that climate change will be explicitly listed in article 174, and that the environmental objectives will now include
	promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems, and in particular combating climate change.
	The House has already had the opportunity to discuss the energy policy changes in the Lisbon treaty, but it is worth reiterating that there are obviously clear advantages for tackling climate change in the new objective for European energy policy in article 176A: to
	promote energy efficiency and energy saving and the development of new and renewable forms of energy.
	Article 188R, the solidarity clause, also has an impact on climate change. It states that
	The Union and its Member States shall act jointly in a spirit of solidarity if a Member State is the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of a natural or man-made disaster.
	The issue of a terrorist attack may have been covered on a different day. However, with particular reference to climate change, scientists tell us that our best realistic hope is for a 2(o) rise in temperatures; we can expect an increasing frequency of natural disasters, so the solidarity clause is also welcome.
	As has been mentioned, the EU will be able to play an important role in adaptation; as the science gets better, we will be able to work out on which areas that 2(o) rise will have the biggest impact and where we need to take action.

Rob Marris: I am delighted to hear the hon. Lady talk about adaptation, which is not discussed enough in the House. Is she, like me, surprised and saddened that the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) never mentioned it in the 30 minutes during which he was on his feet?

Jo Swinson: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We need to consider climate change in the context of both mitigation and adaptation, because the science tells us that a level of climate change is now inevitable. Mitigating that and minimising it as much as possible is obviously important, but many communities, particularly coastal oneswe are on an islandhave to bear the impacts.

Phil Woolas: To back up the hon. Lady's point, I should say that it is not often understood that we have already reached 0.7 of those 2(o). We are already down the track that far, so she is absolutely right.

Jo Swinson: Indeed. The confirmation in article 2C of the environment as a shared competence is also welcome. Of course the UK must preserve its right to act on environmental matters, but we also need EU-wide actionthe environment is exactly the kind of issue that should be a shared competence.

Graham Stuart: Like the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), I praise the hon. Lady for raising the issue of adaptation. She is aware that funding for adaptation in the developing world is currently about 37 million a year from the clean development mechanism. However, the estimates just for the developing world are 1,000 times thatbetween 30 billion and 60 billion a year is required for the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world to be protected against climate change, which is already inevitable. The treaty may make a differencewho knows? If it is to do so, we need the Secretary of State and other Ministers to give increased priority to adaptation and allocate funds appropriately.

Jo Swinson: The hon. Gentleman makes a good pointand a good case for a stronger Europe that is able to take action on that issue.
	The European Union emissions trading scheme is the single most important development in tackling climate change for the UK and Europe; arguably, it is a pioneer for the rest of the world. Emissions trading will play a vital role in reducing carbon emissions internationally. Phase 1 has shown how a scheme can be successfully set up and administered, and have very high compliance rates, but it has not shown how we can use it to cut carbon emissions. However, the scheme is a step in the right direction and there are encouraging signs that we are learning from the over-generous allocations in phase 1, which were raised by the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth).
	I am optimistic that phase 2 can make more of a contribution to emissions cuts, although it is regrettable that that phase has a maximum of 10 per cent. auctioning, given that we all know that auctioning is far more economically efficient. It is even more regrettable that the UK will get up to only 7 per cent. auctioning. I urge the Secretary of State and Ministers to consider extending the auctioning to 100 per cent., particularly as we approach phase 3. That would give us the best possible tools and enable us to make the scheme effective and pass the price signals on.
	We have already heard about the shortcomings of the ETS and the exclusion of aviation and shipping, although it is welcome that the Government at least recognise that that needs to be pursued. We should, as a House, recognise the success of the scheme so far and the fact that it is being emulated in many other parts of the world, such as California. The Environmental Audit Committee, several members of which are here in the Chamber, recently went on a trip to Australia, where we were told that the Australians are setting up an emissions trading scheme using the EU scheme as a model and learning from our mistakes. We were also able to enlighten them somewhat on the changes that we would have made. Their scheme goes further in terms of including transport, so I hope that countries will be able to learn from each other on this. It is particularly pleasing that Australia's decade of climate change denial has come to an end with the electors deciding to elect Kevin Rudd. Interestingly, that was perhaps one of the first elections where the issue of climate change was so pivotal in deciding the resultthat may be a sign of things to come. They are having their own mini-Stern report, the Garnaut report, which will, I hope, help them to catch up on lost time.
	The EU has had many environmental successes, and I will touch on a few of them; others have already been mentioned. The landfill directive, with its escalating penalties for sending too much waste to landfill, is driving up recycling rates across the UK, and they have significantly increased in the past few years. Some of the proceeds from that go into funding community groups, including some in my constituency that have been lucky enough to receive grants. It was about time that we learned from our continental neighbours, many of whom have been recycling huge amounts more than us for decadesbut better late than never, and we still have a long way to go. The interestingly named WEEEwaste electrical and electronic equipmentdirective has been helping to encourage more recycling and safe disposal of electrical goods. There is the EU energy label, with the A to G ratings on white goods, which has been very successful in making it easier for consumers to know, when buying appliances, which ones will cost them dear in their energy bills.

Rob Marris: What about cars?

Jo Swinson: IndeedI was just coming to the directive on vehicle emissions, which phases out and bans leaded petrol and sets standards for acceptable emissions, coupled with labelling for vehicles on energy use so that when people are buying a car they can see exactly how much it will cost them to run.

Peter Ainsworth: I agree with much of what the hon. Lady is saying, but does she agree that the latest proposal to force cars to have their headlamps on all the time is utterly ludicrous?

Jo Swinson: There would certainly be a case for that in some parts of Scotland during the winter months, but I suspect that we may be better off encouraging drivers to use their common sense about when it is required.
	Those changes have not only enabled consumers to make different decisions about what to buy but are encouraging manufacturers to make different decisions about the types of cars that they want to sell. There has also been an international lead from the EU. As the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said, Kyoto might not have been ratified without EU pressure on various other countries, particularly Russia. The EU was a key player at the recent Bali conference, and while it was disappointing not to get carbon reduction targets agreed, we did at least secure, in principle, international agreements to cuts, and the details will be worked out following further negotiations towards Copenhagen in 2009.

Graham Stuart: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Jo Swinson: I will, but I want to make some progress.

Graham Stuart: It is a very quick question. Will the hon. Lady share with the House one key practical change in European policy on climate change that will come as a result of the Lisbon treaty?

Jo Swinson: I do not have a crystal ball, but I certainly believe that it is important that climate change is listed explicitly as one of the EU's priorities. Given the choice between having it listed or not, I know which I would prefer. When we look at what the EU was set up to do, peace and security was obviously a key driver in the initial post-war period, but now, increasingly, climate change must be one of the top priorities, and it would be bizarre for it not to be listed in the new treaty.

David Kidney: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Jo Swinson: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I really do want to make progress, because many other hon. Members want to speak.
	We welcomed the setting of various targets at the March 2007 European summitthe 20 per cent. energy efficiency target, the target on a 20 per cent. reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020, and the target on 20 per cent. of energy coming from renewable sources. However, we need to push to increase those, and the EU has said that it is keen to do soto 30 per cent., if international partners do likewise. Given that the EU went to Bali and argued for a cut of 25 to 40 per cent. by 2020, while we have agreed only to 20 per cent. ourselves, we need to recognise the urgency of the issue, particularly if, as the science is now telling us, 60 per cent. by 2050 may not be enough and we may have to go up to 80 per cent. If so, 20 per cent. by 2020 seems a little unambitious, and it will lead to much more painful cuts and reductions in the years from 2020 to 2050.
	Another disappointment regarding the target on 20 per cent. of energy coming from renewable sources was that when Tony Blair signed up to it in March 2007, he said that Britain should aspire to meet the target by 2020, but the Government have now backtracked to 15 per cent. Britain has huge renewable resources at its disposal, with the potential offered by wind and marine energy through tidal and wave power. We must recognise the urgency of investing in research and development to realise that potential and be far more ambitious. If Britain wants to be a leader in this area, we should not lag behind our European partners, with them achieving more than 20 per cent. and us achieving less than 20 per cent.
	However, Europe does not always get it right, and in a few areas we should be pushing it to do much better. One issue, which I have raised previously with the Secretary of State and in a ten-minute Bill, is excessive packaging, which leads to UK consumers paying three times over for the ridiculous amount of packaging that surrounds the stuff that we buy. They not only pay for it at the checkout but through their council tax bills in sending it to landfill, and then they also pay the environmental cost of the gas that is given off and the changes made to our environment. The Packaging (Essential Requirements) Regulations 2003the EU directive that governs thisis completely toothless. Since its introduction, and that of its predecessor regulations nine years ago, there have been just four prosecutions. Trading standards officers complain that they have numerous problems with enforcement. When I raised this with the Secretary of State in the Environmental Audit Committee, he said that the environment directorate-general was keen to look at reviewing it. I have written to the directorate for further information, but so far there has been no response. I wonder whether the Secretary of State might have more luck and be able to help me with more information on the issue.

Martin Salter: Does the hon. Lady agree that it is about time that we saw some effective action to get rid of the scandalous waste and destruction that is caused by single-use plastic bags, some 13 billion of which are used and abused in this country every year?

Jo Swinson: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Plastic bags can indeed be a scourge in terms of litter and the effect on marine life. We need to exercise a little caution, because research studies from other countries where they have been banned or taxed show that that has led to unforeseen consequences. However, when I go shopping I take reusable bags whenever I can, and I urge other Members to do the same.
	Another aspect that is disappointing from a European perspective is biofuels. The EU has a target of 10 per cent. by 2020, and in the UK it is 5 per cent. by 2010. This is a very expensive policy, and it has been called into question by a growing body of academics and organisations, not least the Royal Society, the United Nations, the OECD, Professor Kingthe Government's own adviserand, recently, the Environmental Audit Committee. Sustainability standards are much discussed, but they are not yet in place. The evidence that we received on the Environmental Audit Committee suggested that it may be impossible to create robust sustainability standards that would truly capture the problem of land use change and deforestation. The Government have been pretty dogmatic in their line that pursuing biofuels is the right way forward. Indeed, in Transport questions on 22 January, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), told me that
	we are convinced that that is the right way to proceed.[ Official Report, 22 January 2008; Vol. 470, c. 1352.]
	I am nothing if not persistent, so I raised the issue again at business questions last Thursday morning, at  Hansard column 527. I was pleased to see that on Thursday afternoon at 2.15 pm, the Department for Transport issued a press release saying that the Secretary of State was initiating a review of the indirect impact of biofuels. It is not often, as a Member in this place, that one has such an immediate impact on Government policy. I am delighted that the Government now accept that there may be issues with biofuels and that when the facts change it is fair enough for them to change their mind. I hope that it will be a thorough review that, if necessary, leads to the UK changing its policy and arguing for changes in Brussels.

Michael Weir: I appreciate what the hon. Lady is saying, but does she not agree that a distinction has to be made between first generation biofuels, which were very dodgy with regard to sustainability, and second generation biofuels, which may come from the wood industry and so forth? There is a possibility of making something out of second generation biofuels.

Jo Swinson: That is true, but they are not currently commercially viable. It is important to look at the differences between biofuels. For example, using waste oils, which otherwise would just be thrown away, to create fuel seems sensible. However, I have a problem with targets that can hasten the development of biofuels that do not meet such robust environmental standards. There may be interesting research to be done on second generation biofuels, but we are not there yet.

Martin Caton: I agree with the hon. Lady's line on biofuels. When talking about some sort of sustainability scheme, does she agree that there is a real problem with displacement? We might end up with a scheme where sustainable certification is granted for a palm oil plantation in Indonesia, for example, that has transferred to producing renewable fuels, but then develops a new palm oil for other uses that ends up taking up rain forest. Sustainability is a hugely difficult issue.

Jo Swinson: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We took a lot of evidence on the Select Committee about the importance of sustainability standards, and some of our witnesses were quite optimistic about that issue, but I remember vividly asking a question about it. We said, If there is a particular field or plot of land that is currently designated as agricultural land, what is to stop them clearing a bit of forest to put food production there, then using the land that was used for food production for the biofuels, in order to mask what they had done? We could not get an answer from any witness on how to develop a standard that would properly take that problem into account. I found that somewhat depressing, but perhaps it is the reality of the situation.
	I am conscious that many other hon. Members want to speak, so I say in conclusion that the European approach to climate change is not perfect. We can and we must work to improve it. We must also, however, recognise its genuine achievements. Europe is taking a global lead on this issue. I would like to quote the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd), who is in the Chamber. He said that getting Europe to work on climate change would be helping the EU redefine its relevance to a new generation. I totally agree with that. This is the biggest challenge that we face. It is in all of our interests to work across Europe and internationally, to rise to meet this challenge.

Joan Walley: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson). I say to her and to the House that many distinguished people from the Environmental Audit Committee are speaking with great distinction in the House today, especially on environmental issues. It is great to see so many past and present members. During the past 10 years, that Committee has played a key role in pushing forward the environmental debate.
	One former member of the Environmental Audit Committee spoke for the Oppositionthe hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), and I agreed with much of what he said. He talked, however, about the need for action; the Conservatives can dream up all the action that they want, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) said, if we do not have the institutional framework, the mechanisms, the procedures or a way of being able to co-ordinate matters to get a joined-up approach, we will not get the action that is needed. That is why the key wordnever mind the six words we are looking at today concerning climate changein the opening remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was leadership. It is critical to use the debate to show how the leadership that the Government have shown in Europe, at so many international conferences and in so many treaties is what we need to take the issue forward.
	I have received, as have many other hon. Members, a great deal of correspondence on the amendments that the treaty of Lisbon makes to the treaty on the European Union. I shall use the brief time available to set out why it is so important that we ratify the treaty and why the misinformed view that we are simply giving away power to Europe does not add up when it comes to the pressing need to secure urgently an international climate change regime.
	My starting point is article 174 of the treaty on the European Union, which states:
	Community policy on the environment shall contribute to pursuit of the following objectives: preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment; protecting human health
	and the fourth indent will be amended to read
	promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems, and in particular, combating climate change.
	That is the corethe heart of the matter. Moreover, article 174.4 already establishes a duty for members to co-operate with the wider international community in combating climate change. It states:
	the Community and the Member States shall cooperate with third countries and with the competent international organizations.
	I believe that that is essential in combating climate change, which is fundamentally an international issue.
	There is no more important challenge facing the international community and the people whom we represent than climate change. It faces people everywhere, from those who have written to me asking us to go further than the 60 per cent. target in the Climate Change BillI was pleased to hear the leadership shown by the Prime Minister at Prime Minister's questions last week, when he said that the new climate change commission will be asked to see how we might move towards an 80 per cent. targetto the people in China whom members of the Environmental Audit Committee met, including the ambassador on climate change. As we arrived, we experienced extreme temperatures and climate changethe worst snowstorms that that country has experienced. It faces the people of Australia, and I am pleased to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt), who was in the Australian Parliament only last week. The new Government of Kevin Rudd was elected on the back of the climate change election commitment that he gave.
	The challenge faces people in developing countries all around the world. Only today we read in the press that they face shortages of grain. We need to have regard to the United Nations and other agencies that recognise that the stiff increase in grain prices is linked to extreme weather conditions, which lead to devastating effects such as flooding and drought. People who are experiencing that desperately want policies now. They want policies that will urgently reduce carbon emissions, which means that we can tackle climate change only by being at the heart of Europe. The new arrangements will assist us in that.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe referred to the change in voting on climate change matters and environmental legislation from unanimity to qualified majority voting. I thought that he made that point very well. With the expansion of the European Union we have to change the way in which we administer matters and do business. We need the institutional framework that Conservative Members do not seem to want this Parliament and this Government to have.
	I welcome the new parliamentary role for MPs announced this week by my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House. Having looked closely at the new arrangements, I have found that there will be greater transparency of scrutiny and increased expertise made available in European Committees, through the inclusion of members of the European Scrutiny Committee and of relevant Select Committees. Those changes to parliamentary procedure will allow us better to scrutinise and contribute to what Ministers are doing to take environmental policies forward in Europe. We have to have checks and balances, and this House has to find a better way of giving its views so that Ministers going to Europe do so on the basis of taking into account Members' views. That will give us the more effective framework that is so urgently needed.
	Many of those who have spoken have listed at great length the various strategic policy issues that have already been advanced in Europe, but which desperately need to be increased much more quickly. I agree about all of those, but want briefly to touch on the work of the Oxford Research Group, which has urged us to look into ways of making foreign and global security policy into a more sustainable policy. The issue of foreign policy is at the heart of Europe, too.
	Finally, I should like to end by referring to Mr. Lester Brown from the Earth Policy Institute in Washington, who will be in Westminster next week. Last year he published a book

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has had her eight minutes.

Peter Atkinson: I regret that we will never discover quite what Mr. Lester Brown did, unless the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Joan Walley) wants to intervene.

Joan Walley: Mr. Brown is attending a meeting in the House next week and his book is called Mobilizing to Save Civilization. If we have the political will, we need the institutions.

Peter Atkinson: All I can say is well done Mr. Lester Brown. I hope that the meeting is successful, as the issue is important.
	I accept that the European Union has done many important things that have benefited our worldit has made the climate better and our environment betterbut I want to concentrate on where Europe has performed extremely badly, which is in agriculture, farming and the lamentably slow process of common agricultural policy reform. In this time of changing climate, it is important that Europe should change and modernise its agriculture. As we have seen, in recent decades Europe was all about surpluses, but now the boot is on the other foot and we are talking about shortages. The hon. Lady talked about the rising price of grain. It is right that Europe should produce more food now, not only for its own security, but so that it does not import food that is needed elsewherebeing a collection of rich nations, we can outbid the poorer nations.

Bob Spink: I cannot allow my hon. Friend to get away with saying that Europe has helped to clean up the environment, because it simply has not. In fact, Europe has continued to increase carbon emissions over the years and is still doing so. That is a great problem. We hear a lot of rhetoric from Europe, but we see no action.

Peter Atkinson: I disagree with my hon. Friend on that. I appreciate that Europe is not perfect, but it has made some substantial contributions towards improving the environment.
	The issue now is food shortage. We have seen a surge in food prices. There is now talk of the UN World Food Programme having to be cut back because of rising prices and a possibility of introducing rationing, which I understand Egypt and Pakistan have done. Only yesterday the price of palm oil increased by about 6 per cent., while wheat and soya prices have risen to record highs on the world market in recent weeks.
	That has been substantially driven by the changing climate. One of the reasons why the price of oil increased so much was the cold winter in China, which virtually wiped out the Chinese rape seed crop. That means that China has been in the market buying oil. The same applies with the drought in Australia, which has lasted for many years, and the drought in sub-Saharan Africa. We have climate change in this country, too. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) now has bluetongue in his constituency, which has spread up from southern Europe and is causing a problem for our farmers.
	I quite agree that biofuels will prove totally unsustainable unless there is substantial reform of the way the schemes operate. Interestingly, 60 per cent. of Europe's vegetable oila scarce world commoditynow goes into biofuels. In the United States the figure is 20 per cent. People talk about biofuels being good for the environment, but there is obviously a fuel security issue in the United States. It seems nonsensical that issues such as fuel security should come at the expense of poor people throughout the world.
	That issue does not matter in Europe, where people spend about 10 per cent. of their income on food. However, the figure is 60 per cent. for people in sub-Saharan Africa, for whom a surge in prices would be catastrophic. We have had surges before. What normally happens is that the market eventually catches up. This time, however, I suspect that the gap will be quite considerable, because the effect of climate changeit degrades agricultural land, which means less land being used for food productionwill be to make any surge in food prices more serious.
	What should Europe do about that? It needs to increase its food production sensibly. First, Europe could deregulate more. Secondly, it could continue to

Hilary Benn: indicated dissent.

Peter Atkinson: The Secretary of State shakes his head, but Europe could indeed deregulate more. Secondly, it should proceed as rapidly as possible to reform the common agricultural policy, whose absorption of half the European Union's budget is obscene. Thirdly, and perhaps more controversially, it is about time that the nations of Europe embraced genetically modified crops, which are producing a tremendous revolution in agriculture throughout the world. GM cropsnot least drought-resistant wheatare capable of meeting some of the problems that climate change has thrown up.

Patricia Hewitt: I am following the hon. Gentleman's thoughtful comments with great interest and I happen to agree with him about GM crops. However, although a great deal more still needs to be done to reform the CAP and although its overall budget needs to be reduced, does he recognise that there has already been significant reform, so that much less of its budget is now spent on those outrageous subsidies to food production and more goes into direct support for farmers to maintain the local environment?

Peter Atkinson: I accept what the right hon. Lady says. She was very much involved in that process, which was certainly a step forward. In my mind, however, the CAP budget is still too high. We need to move much closer to a proper market system, which, with prices at the level that they have now reached, is even more possible.
	I was singing the praises of GM crops. They have considerable potential, but have become unpopular with consumers in this country, who have been scared by the talk of Frankenstein food, and so on, and are hugely worried about them. The new generation of genetically modified organisms, as they are actually called, has moved into areas that will enable us to make food healthier, which is enormously important. We can now produce oil that does not form trans fats when cooked, which is better for health. For those who are interested in carbon sinks, a eucalyptus tree has been developed in Australia that will absorb three times as much carbon dioxide as an ordinary tree.
	The new scientific approaches should therefore not be rejected. Europe should not have a luddite attitude towards them. If we adopt the new science, we will go some way towards making a contribution to beating the challenge of climate change.

David Kidney: The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) would not give way to me, but she made an excellent speech and it was a pleasure to listen to it.
	The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) made some interesting comments about the link between climate change and agriculture. I fully agree with him, but he might have mentioned adaptation and the work that we can do through land management to protect against floods and severe weather changes, for example. I also found what he said about genetically modified organisms very interesting.
	However, I should point out to the hon. Gentlemanhe almost gave us credit for thisthat it was under a Labour Government that this country achieved the one and only agreement to change the common agricultural policy. Since this debate is about climate change, I hope that he would accept that our change moved things in the right direction, both by decoupling public payments to farmers from production of goods and through voluntary modulation, providing even more money for farmers involved in agri-environmental works. So there are some bright points in Europe on climate change, through a Labour Government, in respect of farming and land management.
	Let me come back to the words in the treaties. In debating climate change, three sections are particularly relevant and significant. The first is measures for energy efficiency and renewable energy. As was remarked earlier, most of the provisions are a consolidation of the existing text. Secondly, there is wording on combating climate change, which is plainly new. It seems to me bizarre to argue that it is irrelevant to move from saying nothing about climate change to talking about promoting the combat of it. That is very significant. Before I come to the third section, let me say that, taking those two sections together, the treaty texts underpinning the EU bring us up to speed with the agreement that the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire mentionedthe agreement to have 20 per cent. of energy from renewable sources and a 20 per cent. cut in carbon emissions by 2020. In a sense, that shows the two working together: action and the necessary underpinning words to go with it.

Bob Spink: The hon. Gentleman is talking about words and rhetoric, and he will recall the common fisheries policy objective and rhetoric were about conserving fish stocks, but it presided over the decimation and historic destruction of our fish stocks, which shows that we cannot trust pure rhetoric from Europe. Carbon emissions in Europe, for instance, are growing day on day.

David Kidney: I would advise the hon. Gentleman not to listen to my or anyone else's rhetoric, but to look at the words plus the action and see how they work together.
	The third part of the treaty text that I want to mention is the addition of sustainable development to the key objectives of the EU, which Members can now find in article 3. I still occasionally hear objections to the whole idea of the EU from one or two constituents who hark back to when we joined it. They say that Edward Heath told them that we were joining only a European Economic Community. In adding the words sustainable development after the reference to an internal market in the key objectives, there is a maturing of the EU into something that recognises the importance of sustainable development. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, that amounts to a recognition that it is essential to balance economic, environmental and social considerations to get the right outcome in using the world's resources in a sustainable way so that we do not take out more than the earth can afford. To my mind, that third example of new wording is the most significant of the three when we are talking about tackling climate change in future.
	Let me provide some examples of where sustainable development applies. Again, the Secretary of State referred earlier to the UK's leadership in Europe in the past. We have had the confidence to lead because we have had such backing behind us. The first example was the negotiation of the Kyoto agreement and the acceptance of legally binding targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions. In the end, when we divided out the EU share of those emissions, we took more than the overall 8 per cent. targetand we are on target virtually to double our savings beyond our legally binding target.

John Gummer: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the decision to have an EU system whereby those who could do more would do so, in order that those who could not do more could do less, was taken under the last Conservative Government? The idea that the best way forward is that those who can should help those who cannot was a historic decision in the EU.

David Kidney: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and that is a good example of social justice in action. I am slightly disappointed, in reflecting on the target to meet 20 per cent. of our energy needs from renewable sources, that the UK share is less than 20 per cent, so I would agree with him about how these matters are divided up. On the occasion that he mentioned, they were divided up as he described, and in the 2020 targets, they are beginning to be divided up in the same way. The principle still applies.
	Another important example of UK leadership with EU backing was emissions trading. As the Secretary of State rightly said, this country established the first emissions trading scheme in the world. I remember the legislation that the House passed in order to set up the scheme, which has now become an EU-wide emissions trading scheme. It is true that there will always be difficulties in setting up a brand new scheme, and they have been adverted to in respect of phase 1 of the ETS earlier in the debate, but we are now approaching the second phase for 2008 to 2012.
	We appear to have learned some lessons from our experience of the first phase: caps are getting tighter and auctioning is being used as a way of distributing permits, but we have not yet seen those developments reflected in a higher carbon price going forward. By the time we get to phase 3, however, I expect that there will be very tight caps, lots of auctioning and, with that, a new challenge to consider. As people start to pay their auction prices to national Governments for their permits and as they start to pay penalties for breaching the permitted amount of emissions, those national Governments are going to receive pretty huge sums of money.
	I wanted to intervene earlier in the speech of the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire when she referred to the positive examples of land use, landfill and tax credits for Community benefits. She took one intervention in which reference was made to the enormous cost of helping developing countries to cope with adaptation, to which I would add the enormous cost of adapting to low carbon economies and of new technologies. We are talking about huge sums of money. The text in front of us says that we are going to commit to promote the tackling of climate change, so surely those huge sums will be applied in accordance with that text, will they not? There we see the great significance of the change in the wording that we are debating today. I urge hon. Members to accept that it is a hugely significant change that will make a great difference to the world in future.
	I met representatives of west midlands manufacturing businesses yesterday and we discussed the pressures of the carbon price in the EU as providing one more push to manufacturers in developed European countries to move to less developed countries where the costs are cheaper. They told MPs that we should beware of adding another push factor to the offshoring of hard-pressed businesses in this country. That is a good antidote for people who stress the urgent need to deal with environmental factors because it reminds us that sustainable development has to be viewed as a balance between three different limbssocial and economic factors as well environmental. We need to keep the three in balance.
	Conversely, across the EU, the low-carbon economy is helped and driven by emissions trading mechanisms, among others. There are opportunities, as the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) mentioned, for European and British businesses to take advantage of being at the forefront of new technologies that will help the whole world to achieve a low-carbon economy. In energy efficiency, for example, condensing boilers are important and in some forms of transportation there are new ways of powering vehicles. When it comes to marine renewables, as the hon. Gentleman said, the UK is uniquely well placed within the EU to be at the forefront of such developments. Finally, as we look forward to developing those business opportunities, it is important to remember that we need intelligent regulation, not no regulation of the markets.

John Gummer: I have generally welcomed the treaty of Lisbon because it brings together in a sensible form a system that will enable us to do the things in the EU that we need to do. Clearly, climate change is one of the most central matters. Let me remind my colleagues who are concerned about the degree of unimportance of these few words of the importance that they often place on a number of other single sentences in the Lisbon treaty and how much time they take explaining how dangerous they are. I have had to spend quite a lot of time explaining why they are not as dangerous as that.
	We cannot dismiss what is in the treaty as merely a few words, because what they say is that, at the heart of the activities of the European Union is the battle against climate change. We cannot do most of the things that we want to do effectively except on the basis of the world's largest trading organisation. There is no doubt, as  The Wall Street Journal recently said, that Europe is setting the standards that the United States and others have to follow. Within the European Union, we can influence that and take a serious leadership role. I believe that that is what we should be doing. The idea that we can deal with the issues of the 27 member states by having a rotating presidency or that we do not have a system whereby we can proceed institutionally is unlikely.
	We depend on the European Union as a whole for a range of changes.

James Clappison: I hope that my right hon. Friend will not mind if I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the very significant achievements that he made as a Secretary of State in this field. He laid the foundations for many of the things that we have heard about. However, to add a slight rider to that, I do not remember that he found the absence of a permanent presidency to be an insuperable obstacle for all that he wanted to achieve.

John Gummer: We had only 15 members at the time. We now have 27. That is why the change has to take place. However, I thank my hon. Friend for his kindness and remind the House that he was one of the Ministers who did those things with me.
	I discovered one time as Minister that the worst place for air quality in Britain on one particularly bad day was in Sibton in my constituency, which is a blink and you miss it village. The reason was that half the air pollution in Britain is blown over from the rest of Europe, and we export half of that which we produce. If we want to do anything about air quality, we have to do it across the whole of Europe. We cannot clean up our beaches if the Elbe and the Rhine are pouring filth into the North sea. We have to do such things together, and we should do so with pleasure and enthusiasm, rather than in this miserable way of always finding a reason why we do not like working with our nearest and dearest. Talking about global co-operation when we cannot get on effectively with our neighbours is nonsense.
	The United Kingdom Independence party is not only entirely wrong on the European Union, but has an entirely non-existent environmental policy, because it is not possible to have an anti-European position and have any kind of environmental policy. However, that does lead us to action. The Government's unwillingness to debate a range of things that we ought to have debated has not been helpful to those of us who have a different view of the treaty of Lisbon. Not being able to discuss some of the issues that we should have discussed has done a great deal of harm. It is a symbol of the fact that the Government do not trust Parliament to debate properly.
	I want to press the Government on a series of actions that they should take. It was a disgrace that they voted against Austria and Denmark when the abolition of hydrofluorocarbons was going to be timetabled. It was a disgrace that they allowed the Home Office and the so-called Ministry of Justice to be rebuilt in the one case and built in the other, with HFCs as the mechanism for dealing with air conditioning. It was also a disgrace because they promised that they would not do that. The Government must set an example to the rest of industry by the way in which they procureby what they do on the Government side. They can do that only if they take other policies seriously.
	I suppose one should not condone the arrival of large banners on this House, but I have huge sympathy for those who say that it is a peculiar environmental policy that suggests that, at the same time as dealing with climate change, we should have another runway at Stansted and at Heathrow. It is difficult to argue the case for being an environmental leader if we go on doing that. We have to restrict the growth of airports and get a sensible policy towards the flights that use them.
	The Government have been tardy on the question of carbon capture. If ever there were an issue that is manifestly obvious, it is that we need a system of carbon capture. Without it, the Chinese economy will not be able to deal with the use of its coal and the like. If we want to export that technology, we have to get it. The Government have done two foolish things. One was to walk out of the deal with BP; the other was to insist that the only kind of carbon capture that they will have is a particular technology that they have decided is the better one. This Government's record on deciding technological choices is not very good. I am sorry that they have not seen fit to deal with that directly. Kingsnorth is the opportunity for the Government to declare their hand effectively.
	Why on earth have the Government held up the introduction of smart metering when we have the legislative vehicle to do that and Ofgem has sought to have it? It is a disgrace. We could do that in eight years and it would do more to deal with climate change and the use of energy than any other single reasonable proposal. Why have the Government failed to do that?
	Those concerns lead me to the question of social justice. I agree that there is no possibility of dealing with the issues without a better sense of social justice. Therefore, why have the Government not changed the rules under which Ofwat can deal with metering? I declare an interest: I am chairman of a water company. I have the right to impose metering, but I have refused to do it because I cannot at the same time have a rising tariff system which would enable the poor not to suffer under such an imposition. The Government have not changed Ofgem, Ofwat or any of the other regulators to take all that into account.
	That reminds us that most of the real advances in the environment have been at the behest of the European Union. I am not one of those who say that we go to Europe; rather, I say that we are in Europe, and in Europe we make the decisions around the European table. I have to say, however, that as Secretary of State for the Environment for four years, I could not have done most of the things that I did without the water directives, packaging directives and a range of other things in which we played an active part. I want the Government to be better at playing that part.
	Why are the Government not convening a meeting of the European Union to deal with shipping in the busy shipping lanes to reduce the amount of emissions in the North sea and channel, so that we can make a start on the problem of shipping and bunker fuel? Why have they not taken the lead to get the European Union as a whole to have a sensible measurement of biofuels? We have done the work here, but the Government will not use it even for their measurements of biofuels. I want to know why the Government are not putting into operation feed-in tariffs. They could have easily learned how to do that from Germany, but they are still fighting for an unacceptable out-of-date mechanism, which we need to replace.
	In supporting the treaty of Lisbon and believing that it will do much to concentrate people's minds on the battle against climate change, I say to the Government that they cannot come to the House without explaining why they have not been more vibrant and enthusiastic. They should have listened less to the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and a bit more to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to do their job.

Michael Meacher: After listening to that splendid eulogy on behalf of Europe, much of which I agree with, I want to take a different line, while recognising that Europe is, as the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said, absolutely central to our purpose. It is ridiculous to have any other view.
	The problem for the EU in regard to climate change is not that there is a need for a new constitution or amended treatiesalthough I welcome the warm words, albeit only six of them, in the Lisbon treaty, because they are worth havingbut that it does not yet have a policy on climate change that is working. The policy is built on the EU emissions trading scheme, which has so far clearly been a failure. The EU policy is also based on a regulation of car emissions that so far has been voluntary and therefore ineffective. The policy excludes aircraft from any regulatory scheme, which means that airline emissions continue to rise extremely fast. Finally, EU member states have a burden-sharing arrangement for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but only three of the EU 15 countries are on track to meet their targets by 2010.
	The key EU policy has clearly been the emissions trading scheme. In phase 1, more permits to pollute have been printed than there is pollution. As a result, emissions across the EU from installations covered by the ETS have actually risen by nearly 1 per cent. The lesson has been learned, of course, that the real problem has been over-allocation during phase 1. However, just as one loophole is beginning to be closedand I am afraid that phase 2 is doing far too little to close it when it comes to the level of auctioninganother, even larger loophole has opened up.
	In phase 2, member states will be permitted to import external Kyoto credits from developing countries in order to meet their carbon reduction targets. That might be acceptable if the credits reflected actual emission cuts, but many of them are generated from projects in developing countries that would have gone ahead anyway. In other words, there is no additionality, and the result will be that those credits will increase pollution.

Bob Spink: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Meacher: I will, although I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not going to make the same point that he has made several times already in the debate.

Bob Spink: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I assure him that I shall make a different point. Does he agree that the EU emissions trading scheme is in fact a covert industrial subsidy, given that carbon emissions in Europe are actually rising? Also, France will take over the European presidency at the beginning of July. Does he expect France to take up the targets for environmental and climate change, or does he share my anxiety that it will simply push the European defence policy?

Michael Meacher: We should not underestimate President Sarkozy's commitment in respect of climate change. In fact, he has suggested the extraordinarily radical policy that tariff constraints should be used against countriesmost notably the US, of coursethat refuse to admit the need to tackle climate change. As far as I know, that policy is far more radical than anything adopted by any other country around the world.

David Chaytor: My right hon. Friend is making exactly my point: regardless of what we think of President Sarkozy's social policies, or of some of his economic policies, there is no doubt that he has been very up front indeed about his commitment to climate change policy. Given his recent personal difficulties, his opinion poll ratings of 38 per cent. are a record low for a French president. That means that he has to do something very quickly, and being positive on climate change could help in that respect.

Michael Meacher: I agree, but let us get back to the UK. The Government have admitted that they are allowing forand indeed expectingtwo thirds of the headline carbon emissions that they have announced as resulting from phase 2 in 2008-12 to occur outside the UK, and outside the EU as well. Worse, other member states have set even higher import quotas than we have, which means that they will be able to import more than enough to meet their requirements and then to sell the rest on to the UK, no doubt at a nice profit. The effect is that phase 2 of the ETS may well not lead to any reductions in emissions in the UK at all. I think I am right in saying that the Government agree with that forecast.
	The ETS is the linchpin of the EU's anti-climate change policy. For all its good intentions, I fear that it has been distorted into something of a massive scam. In phase 1, it is believed that the power generators made more than 2 billion in windfall profits in the UK alone. They achieved that by passing on the notional cost of carbon to consumers, even though they had been given permits for free.
	In phase 2, it is quite likely that the Kyoto mechanisms will be swamped by a huge oversupply of permits that will lead again to very low carbon prices. The real secret is to ensure that the carbon price is set at a level that seriously affects industrial and individual action, but there is a real chance that that still will not happen in phase 2.
	There is a great deal of talk in this country about whether our target for 2050 should be a reduction in carbon emissions not of 60 per cent. but of 80 per cent. I entirely agree with that proposition, although I believe that it partly misses the point. The real question is not whether we cut emissions by 60 or 80 per cent. way down the track in 2050, but whether we are going in the right direction now, and on a significant scale. Sadly, I believe that we are still going in the wrong direction.

Graham Stuart: The intergovernmental panel on climate change's fourth assessment report said that global emissions would have to peak in 2015 if we are to restrict the rise in temperature to the 2 C limit. Does the right hon. Gentleman know of anything in EU policy making that reassures him that Europe is committed to ensuring that that is achieved?

Michael Meacher: I am certainly one of those who feel that time is exceedingly short. The report from Nicholas Stern made it clear that even opting for the more moderate target of keeping the concentration of carbon greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to 550 parts per million, as opposed to 450 ppm, could still lead to a likelihood of between 50 and 90 per cent. that climate change could run out of control. The situation is exceedingly dangerous, but I do not believe that any country in the world has really begun to take on the sort of drastic policies that are necessary to avert disaster.
	However, I want to pay a tribute to DEFRA, and in particular to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is sitting on the Front Bench. His Department has made valiant efforts, but the real problem in Whitehall is that other Departments are pursuing policies that encourage climate change. The tripling of airport capacity and the huge expansion of Heathrow are two examples, but I could also cite the virtual absence of any controls in this country over vehicle emissions and the dropping of the requirement on the UK's biggest companies to report annually on their plans to cut carbon emissions.
	We have talked about giving a lead on climate change to the wider population by introducing household carbon allowances, but we have failed to do anything about it. We have a depressingly weak policy on promoting renewables, but perhaps the most extraordinary and perverse of all our failures is our continuing and relentless attempt to corner the remaining repositories of oil around the world, even in those areas where conditions are the most extreme. I am referring to Britain's apparent attempt to annex one third of a million square miles of the sea bed off Antarctica, where mineral and oil deposits are expected to be found. Moreover, our attempt to exploit Canada's Athabascan tar sands will produce a massive increase in greenhouse gas emissions. The Climate Change Bill is fine, but it must be followed up by action in all other Departments that is consistent with its goals.
	I am all in favour of our lecturing other countries at international gatherings about their need to reduce their carbon emissions, but why do we allow the Drax power station in Yorkshire to emit from a single chimney more CO2 than is emitted by 100 smaller countries around the world? Why are the Government poised to begin a new round of coal-fired power generationthe most polluting form of energy? The Kingsnorth plant in Kent was originally justified on the grounds that it would be a breakthrough demonstration of carbon capture and storage. I was prepared to support it, so why are the press reportingI hope the reports are wrongthat the Government seem to be moving away from it?
	Finally, it is clear that we need a fundamentally new set of policies to promote the use of renewables in this country if we are going to get anywhere near the EU target of having 15 per cent. of all forms of energy produced from renewables by 2020. The target means that the amount of electricity generated from renewables will have to rise from the present 4 per cent.one of the lowest levels in Europeto 35 or 40 per cent.or one of the highest levelswithin 12 years.
	How are the Government going to be able to achieve that? There needs to be a massive change in our attitudes towards microgeneration. In addition, the low-carbon buildings programme must be given enough money to ensure that it does not run out in a matter of hours. We will also have to abandon and replace the renewables obligations, and in that I agree with the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal. The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform may like them, because they help the big operators, but we need to give renewables the same boost that they have been given in Germany and Spain. If we did that, we would achieve some real progress.

DEFERRED DIVISION

Madam Deputy Speaker: I now have to announce the result of the Division deferred from the previous day.
	On the draft Cheshire (Structural Changes) Order 2008, the Ayes were 278, the Noes were 151, so the motion was agreed to.
	 [The Division Lists are published at the end of today's debates.]

Treaty of Lisbon (No. 8)

Question again proposed.

Nick Hurd: The Secretary of State has made it clear that the Lisbon treaty does not significantly change the powers of the EU to show leadership on climate change, so we do not have much substance to debate. However, this afternoon presents a welcome opportunity to scrutinise and debate the EU's actions in our name, and that is crucial.
	As a Conservative, I have no hesitation in saying that we must work through the EU on climate change. There is clearly no national solution to the problem and we must therefore maximise our leverage in international negotiations, which means working through the EU and embracing the simple fact that it is, perhaps timidly, cast in a leadership role on the crucial issue of our age in the shameful absence of the superpower from the negotiating table. We are in the lead.
	Again, speaking as a Conservative I find it easy to reconcile that positive message with traditional Euroscepticism about single currencies and federalism. The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, kindly quoted from my maiden speech, in which I simply said that I felt the climate change agenda presented an opportunity for the EU to redefine its relevance to the new generation who will pay for it. The evolution of that agenda is similar in importance and scale to the development of the single market. That shows the extent of the opportunities for the EU, and I would like it to embrace them.

David Chaytor: To revert briefly to the single currency, does the hon. Gentleman think it would be possible to operate an emissions trading scheme on the basis of 27 different currencies in the European Union?

Nick Hurd: The future viability of the emissions trading scheme depends on the cap that is set and whether the cap-and-trade scheme is as good as the cap. The overwhelming variability is the reason for the failure up to now and is much more important than currencies.
	The right hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) said that the EU's work on, for example, water directives, producer responsibility directives and landfill directives provides a solid platform on which to build. However, as we look forward, it is clear that we must tackle key issues if the EU is to continue to be a credible voice on climate change.
	The problem is not ambition or rhetoric. The Montreal protocol or the Kyoto protocol would not have happened without the EU's leadership. We have a set of unilateral targets that do not lack ambition. We have action plans for energy efficiency and we have developed key market mechanisms. The challenge is effective delivery, and honesty about the backdrop of collective failure to reduce emissions, not least in this country. Important issues relating to delivery need to be tackled if the voice of the EU is to continue to be heard in the United States, China, India and Brazilkey players in the debate.
	I want to identify three paramount issues. The first is the future of emissions trading. As a Conservative, I strongly believe that the market will deliver the most effective solutions, but I strongly agree with Stern that the market failure to put an effective price on carbon needs to be correctedthat is a necessary condition of any global solution to the problem. Emissions trading is the policy tool of choice to deliver that price and we are at a pivotal moment in developing it. Other countries are considering the EU scheme, and the harsh fact is that it may have been successful in proving some mechanics but it has failed comprehensively in its core mission of reducing emissions. Clearly, reform is needed.
	There is growing consensus in this country about the core elements of that reform. We set out some ideas in the quality of life report and the Government have presented their ideas. There is growing consensus on the need to reinforce the principle that the polluter should pay. That means ratcheting down free allowances and ratcheting up auctions. There is consensus about the need to reduce the political risk that is attached to the process and I believe that that means developing a consistent and transparent methodology for determining caps and any allowances that are not auctioned. It means expanding the market carefully. The key priority is to include aviation on terms that bite.
	Secondly, I would like more urgency from the EU and the British Government in levering the single market to drive up product standards. There is an enormously important opportunity to engage developing countries because we effectively import many emissions, which are embedded in the products that we buy from countries such as China and Japan. There is a great opportunity to build on the success in labelling and efficiency standards for refrigeration and extend it to other matters. We should consider what is happening in Japan and Germany on taking a new approach to product design and standards, setting minimum rolling standards. Rolling standards mean a dynamic process whereby today's best standards become the minimum in future, in an agreed time. There is therefore a constantly dynamic process of improvement. That is good for Government because it does not involve any public money, good for industry because it creates a competitive environment in which it can get ahead and make itself more efficient, and good for consumers because it will give us a wider range of efficient products. That is a logical extension of what the EU should be doinglevering the single market.
	Thirdly, I want to consider the opportunity for the EU and the member states to do more together. It is clear from the development of technology that much goes on in small silos, including carbon capture and storage, concentration of solar power and long-distance ultra-high voltage power lines. Those technologies are enormously important matters on which member states should work together if we are not to lose the commercial market opportunity to the United States and other countries.
	I am not referring only to technology. European buildings are three times more energy efficient than those in China. If one considers that China will move 400 million people from the country to the city in the next 30 years and that, in that process, it will build more than half the new buildings in the world, one realises the importance of our exporting expertise in architecture and design to China to ensure that those buildings are as energy-efficient as possible. I never hear the Government talk about that.
	Other opportunities include common approaches to phasing out subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, and to procurement. The Government spend 150 billion a year of taxpayers' money through direct and indirect procurement and that presents a massive opportunity, which is not being taken, to drive market change. All that is in the interests of building on the single market and helping us to shape a new age when we can no longer rely on fossil fuels.
	As a Conservative, I want Britain to express a positive voice in pressing Europe to take the opportunities because that is in our collective and national interest. We should act in the name of anyone who is under 40 because I firmly believe that there is no greater threat to the security, prosperity and well-being of those under 40 than an increasingly unstable and dangerous climate.

Several hon. Members: rose

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There is a limited amount of time left for contributions from Back Benchers. If hon. Members could restrict their remarks, more may be successful in catching my eye.

Martin Salter: It is regrettable that the time available is so limited. If Front Benchers had exercised a little more self-discipline, more Back Benchers would have able to speak in this time-limited debate. However, I will restrict my remarks.
	I have been looking forward to the debate for some time. If ever there was a issue that illustrates the futility of the isolationist politics of yesterdaywhich have been spewing forth in Members' correspondence files, and from the mouths of the more extreme Eurosceptics on the Conservative Benches and elsewhere in the countryit is that of climate change. It represents possibly the greatest threat to human life on our planet, and, as others have said today, it requires urgent action, not just national but international, intercontinental and indeed global, if we are to make any progress at all.
	As my hon. Friend the Minister made plain, we are already well down the track in terms of the climate change impact with which our planet will have to deal. The Stern report lives up to its name: it is stern, and the figures that it contains are stark. At worst, 200 million refugees could be on the move owing to floods or drought, up to 40 per cent. of all known species could face extinction, the cost of climate change alone could be 3.68 trillion, and one in six of the world's population could be without ready access to drinking water. The scenario is apocalyptic: disaster on an unimaginable scale, global panic, mass movements of people, and the breakdown of civil society. It is a safe bet that if the next world war is not about oil, religion or a clash of cultures, it will be about access to drinkable water and habitable land.
	We live in scary times, and our response to the challenges will shape our politics in the first half of the 21st century. Climate change is a zero sum game. We are already at a point at which its effects cannot be reversed, and we shall be lucky if we manage to restrict the rise in global temperature to 2. A rise of 3 would result in decreasing crop yields in developed countries, including the United Kingdom, in decreasing world supplies, and in the collapse of whole ecosystems, including the Amazonian ecosystem. A rise of 4 is frankly unimaginable. The melting of the west Antarctic ice sheet would gradually increase sea levels by 5 to 6 m, putting vast tracts of land under water. In the United Kingdom alone, the number of communities at risk from coastal flooding would double to 1.8 million, while in Bangladesh, where half the population live in areas less than 5 m above sea level, permanent flooding and a shortage of drinking water could cause between 30 million and 40 million people to be displaced from their homes.
	Now is not the time for isolationism. Now is the time to step up to the mark and recognise the contribution that this Parliament, this country and this Government can make by working within the institutions of the European Union, rather than claiming that everything that comes out of Brussels is fundamentally flawed and has no place in our future politics of decision making.
	I have been disappointed by the quality of some of the speeches made by Opposition Members today, although some have been of a very high standard. We are not talking about six words; we are talking about whether this EU reform treaty is relevant in the context of climate change and environmental policy. Environmental policy is one of the success stories of the EU. At the time of its founding in 1957, the EU had no environmental dimension; today it has some of the most progressive environmental policies in the world. EU legislation has played a vital role in habitat and species protection, river management, and dramatic improvements in air, water and beach quality. The water framework directive of 2015, in which I know my hon. Friend the Minister is particularly interested, will be the driving force that will raise not just standards of drinking water, but the quality of water and habitat in rivers the length and breadth of the country. It is a vital piece of European legislation.
	Nevertheless, there is an immense amount to be done both to meet existing EU targets and aspirations, and to agree on new targets and actions that will improve the environment and quality of life in Europe. Climate change is the most urgent of those challenges, and we must tackle it effectively if we are to sustain growing prosperity and security.
	The reform treaty contains new commitments on sustainable development in its article on the Union's objective. That article is more detailed than the current text, and offers some improvement. It provides that the EU
	shall work for the sustainable development of Europe,
	while the current text speaks only of
	sustainable development of economic activities.
	That is a significant distinction.
	The treaty emphasises the importance of climate change, and makes it easier to adopt greener energy policies. It has left core provisions on environmental policy substantially unchanged, but greater emphasis has been placed on the struggle against climate change, which has been explicitly added to the objectives of EU environmental policy. Perhaps more significant, energy policy will become formally an area of shared competence between the EU and member states. The treaty also seeks to ensure security of energy supply, and to
	promote energy efficiency and energy saving and the development of new and renewable forms of energy.
	The notion, or contention, that the Lisbon treaty is somehow irrelevant to the climate change debate is fundamentally flawed. Members need only read it to see that that is so.
	A couple of weeks ago I was privileged to visit Greyfriars church in Reading, where churches had joined in a campaign to give up carbon for Lentnot chocolate, but carbon. It was an impressive initiative. Workshops from faith groups throughout my constituency and well beyond discussed climate change. There is a connection between such action and that of the big coalitions that launched the Drop the Debt and Jubilee 2000 campaigns: climate change is a moral issue, not just an environmental issue.
	I mentioned Bangladesh earlier. Let me end by giving some figures. A total of 9.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide is emitted per person per year in the United Kingdom, compared to 0.24 tonnes in Bangladesh. It is ironic, is it not, that the people who have contributed least to climate change are those who will suffer most from its impact.

Michael Weir: Today's debate on the wording of the treaty seems to me a bit like the debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. As far as I can see, there is no great dispute between the parties. We all agree that we need to tackle climate change, and we all agree that we need to tackle it through international institutions, particularly the European Union. In this country we may debate whether we will reduce it by 60 per cent. or by 80 per cent., but at the end of the day those are both ambitious targets. Following any such reduction, the economy will look vastly different from the way it looks today.
	We must all play a part in these efforts. The other week, DEFRA representatives demonstrated a CO2 calculator in Portcullis House. I went along and duly answered all the questions. My house and domestic appliances were finethe emissions were below averagebut when it came to travel the figure went through the roof, and that did not include business flights. Although I have not taken a holiday flight for many years, I represent a rural constituency, and I drive a fair bit.
	I was interested by what the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) said about biofuels, but my view is slightly different from that of some other Members. I recognise the sustainability problem, but I caution against throwing out the baby with the bathwater. In the green debate we talk in a vacuum about reducing emissions by 60 per cent. or 80 per cent., but such issues have a real impact on people in the country. There is the danger that every time we come up with a solution to a problem, someone will say that it is worse than the problem was in the first place.
	I have the impression that people are beginning to get a wee bit turned off. We must take the population with us. We may say that we want an 80 per cent. reduction, but unless the people are prepared to take the necessary steps to meet that target, it is utterly pointless. The EU has a role to play, however, in that it has the ability to bring together 27 of the most industrialised nations in the world to reduce carbon emissions.
	I am aware of the problems involved in the European emissions trading scheme, but when the Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Committee travelled to Brussels last weekby Eurostar, I am glad to say; we did not flywe had interesting discussions with members of the Commission about both energy and climate change. Big changes are coming in phase 3 of the EU emissions trading scheme. There will be an EU-wide cap on the number of emissions allowances instead of 27 national caps; I have difficulty in seeing how that will work, but it is an interesting idea. A much larger share of allowances will be auctioned off, instead of being allocated free of chargethe Chancellor should take a bigger interest in the fact that energy companies have made huge profits on the back of free allocation. There are to be harmonised rules governing free allocation, and:
	Part of the rights to auction allowances will be redistributed from the Member States with high per capita income to those with low per capita income in order to strengthen the financial capacity of the latter to invest in climate friendly technologies.
	That is vital because many of the new member states from the former Soviet bloc have polluting industries and they need to come on board and reach the standards we look for in western Europe.
	A number of new industries are to be included in the ETS, as are other gases. That is important, because we often talk of reductions of 60 and 80 per cent. but we are talking only about carbon dioxide; many other greenhouse gases are not included in them, and they must be included if we are to make a difference.
	I have a concern about aviation. There is an exception in the next stage of the ETS for those sectors that are vulnerable to competition from producers and countries without comparable carbon restraints. That puts a huge hole in the scheme, through which many industries will be allowed to pass, particularly aviation. European airlines flying to the United States or the far east, for example, will not be covered by the ETS. I understand what the Secretary of State says about thatthat Europe can only do what it can do. That underlines the need for more international co-operation on such matters. We must tackle aviation. The EU should look at whether it needs to address flights taking off from the EU regardless of where they are going.
	I have mentioned the danger of discussing this matter in a bubble. Under the Commission's proposals on the ETS and renewable energy, the price of electricity is expected to increase by between 10 and 15 per cent. That is an important point at a time when fuel poverty in the UK is rising because of rising prices. We must balance addressing carbon reduction with the effect that measures have on the public and take action so that they do not pay high energy prices when companies are making massive profits. Many such balances have to be struck.

Alan Whitehead: It is a statement of the blindingly obvious, but we in Europe have to work together on climate change. It is also self-evident that carbon knows no boundaries, so we must work together to make an impact on climate change not only in Europe but in the world. It must therefore have required a great deal of mental gymnastics for the Opposition to come up with their amendment and to distinguish the six words in the Lisbon treaty from all the other necessary actions on climate changeand, indeed, from all the other provisions in the Lisbon treaty that contribute towards those actions, which we know must be taken.
	There are no such verbal gymnastics in amendment No. 151, which we shall discuss later; its distinguished tablers simply wish to remove the phrase climate change from the treaty. I am pleased that Opposition Front Benchers say that they will not support the amendment, although the main amendment in the upcoming Committee stage appears to be 151-lite in its attempt to distinguish between institutionalisation and action. They are not opposed to each other. They are partners; they go together. That is the central point that we need to be clear about this afternoon.
	We can see that relationship between institutionalisation and action in certain examples of things that have already happened that are related to climate change, but not necessarily obviously so. The waste framework directive, and the landfill directive within it, led to the UK introducing the landfill levy and later, through the Waste and Emissions Trading Act 2003, the landfill allowance trading schemeLATSarrangements on municipal waste. Interestingly, at the time the targets were widely criticised as being impossible to achieve because we were so addicted to putting waste in land, and it was said that the trading system would never work and the system's target would never be achieved. However, it was introduced and it does work, and landfill is decreasing substantially. That has echoes in current actions at EU level in other areas, such as the 2007 spring Council agreement on targets on renewable energy and greenhouse gas emission reductions.
	It has been widely suggested that the UK renewable energy target of 15 per cent. is not achievable, but I think that, as a result of the combination of the institutionalisation, the agreement in the framework and the action, we will ensure that it is achieved through the various devices available to us, including those available through other relevant EU directives. It is, therefore, potentially very important to have the dual function of institutionalisation and action.
	One of the main problems with phase 1 of the EU ETS was the self-certification of allocations by member states. Significant change came about only at the point in phase 2 when the Commission rejected all but three of the allocations that had come forward for that phase and said, through the framework of the EU, No, these are not good enough, and the allocations have to be based on an EU-wide understanding of what those allocations consist of and how the system will work. It is essential, therefore, that we work together within the EU, in different ways and with different devices in our different countries, to bring forward the joint action that makes a real difference on climate change. It is a reflection on the confused policy of the Opposition that its Members are incapable of coming up with a statement on that process that distinguishes between taking action and wordsand, indeed, the simple anti-EU position of amendment No. 151.
	The Lisbon treaty is important, and we must continue to work together through the framework of the EU and member states to ensure that the climate change targets that we have set are reached by the EU collectively and by member states individually.

Graham Stuart: In earlier interventions I expressed frustration at the way in which the six words on climate change have been used to take over a day's debate. The debate has, however, been useful. We have heard a series of interesting and informed speeches on UK and EU climate change policy. Some contributionsincluding that of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), which is surprising, given his environmental expertisehave criticised the Conservatives for suggesting that tokenism could be involved in the way in which today's debate has been dealt with. That criticism is entirely unfounded. The Conservative position is quite clear: we absolutely see the EU as having a fundamental role on climate change. We embrace the EU in regard to its competence on an area such as this, and to its making a contribution on climate change. What has united all of those, regardless of party, who moved away from the constitutional points of the debate towards the wider environmental issues is the sense of frustration at the failure to turn what my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) called rhetoric into reality. That is what has united all of us today.
	Of course, if those six words in the treaty will help the EU to put climate change further up its list of priorities, and if they will lead to policies and frameworks that start to provide the results on climate change that we all want in Europe, their inclusion will have been worth while. However, we have not seen any evidence to suggest that that would be the case.
	I joined the Environmental Audit Committee a couple of years ago, probably as a bit of a climate change sceptic. I certainly did not like the zealous, almost evangelical tone used by the many people who had got climate change and rather divisively felt that others had been inadequate in failing to do so. I have wrestled with the subject since, although I have not spoken or written about it a great deal. Having assessed the science and heard the evidence, my position now is that there is a serious likelihood that man-made emissions could have a devastating effect on this earth and that rises in temperature caused by that could have calamitous effects in certain places, whether they would be as apocalyptic as the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) suggested or not. That means that anyone with any common sense and who is used to assessing probabilities would want to take action.
	I agree with Members who have mentioned the Stern report. Hard numbers have now been put on some of those probabilities. That is why, in many parts of the world, including the sole superpower, it is those in the business communitythe hard-headed business people who are interested in looking after their shareholders and returning profits, and not those who are given to hand-wringing environmentalismwho have started to lead the debate. They are used to assessing probabilities.
	I should like to see us all learn to use the language of risk. We should not do as the Government have sometimes donein their papers preparing for the Climate Change Bill, for exampleand state that there is no longer any debate on climate change. Of course there is; there are many uncertainties. However, the likelihood that man-made emissions are affecting our planet is growing all the time. The fact that so many of the world's leading scientists feel that way means that we need to take the issue seriously. It is right and proper to take prudent action to become more energy efficient, along with other steps.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), who is now back in his place, made an important speech on biofuels and the role of agriculture in tackling climate change. With respect to the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), I think that it is important, if we are to carry people with us when we take action, that we take rational and sensible action. It is quite clear that the biofuels policy of HM Government and of the EU is not rational. I should like to quote from evidence given to the Environmental Audit Committee by a senior scientific adviser who sits on the scientific advisory committee to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. It was his view that
	if there is a scientific basis for the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation, I do not know what it is and I have not seen it.

Michael Weir: I should like to clarify that I did not mention the renewable transport fuel obligation; I was talking about the whole issue of biofuels. There is an important difference.

Graham Stuart: I entirely agree. Perhaps I read into the hon. Gentleman's contribution some sense that criticism should not be made of measures such as biofuels because they might do good later. If first-generation biofuels without proper sustainability guidelinessuch guidelines do not existdo more harm than good, it is not right for us to pursue them, regardless of the case for second-generation biofuels. Doing something that is wrong now because there might be something good to do later does not make any sense. I see no reason to believewe have received no evidence to this effectthat the renewable transport fuel obligation, other EU measures and targets, such as the 10 per cent. biofuel content target set by the French, and the unsustainable activity that is being driven now will engender more sustainable activity later.
	With biofuels, we have a combination of the worst forms of French protectionism and a desire for energy security. The EU and the United States are pushing for targets. In the US, that is primarily driven by energy security. The US has set a 20 per cent. target for biofuels and, by every measure, the biofuels used are bad for the environment. Set against many measures, they create more emissions in their life cycle than pulling fossil fuels out of the ground and burning them would create. That is a calamitous situation, which we should not encourage.
	In the EU, on the other hand, where energy security is also an issue, the primary driver is the desire to subsidise rural development. That should not be the top priority. The top priority should be climate change. I hope that we will have a rational policy base and that the EU and the UK Government will reverse their current policies on biofuels and ensure that we have a sustainable framework in place before we promote such technology.

David Chaytor: Today's debate has been far more rational, outward-looking and forward-thinking than some of the previous debates on the European treaty. That is a measure of some of the individuals who have spoken from the Opposition Front Benches. I want to encourage an outward-looking, forward-thinking approach to the EU. A big challenge is facing the Conservative party if it is to formulate a sensible policy on climate change and the role of the European Union.
	In the brief time available, I want to concentrate on the wording of the Opposition amendment. Two things concern me, and the amendment is rather disappointing in view of the generally positive approach to the EU that has been expressed today. First, the Opposition dismiss the role of the treaty of Lisbon as effectively irrelevant in advancing the cause of climate change policy. That bears no relation to reality. It is an important step forward from the constitutional treaty to have the specific reference to climate change. Of course, it is also a major step forward to have a specific competence on energy policy. The specific references to the importance of energy efficiency, renewables, energy security and the mutual interdependence of the member states in ensuring energy security for each individual state are extremely important.
	On the question of the organisational changes, the amendment quotes the Foreign Secretary, who said that climate change agreements already reached by the EU
	have done more to show the relevance of the European Union than any amount of institutional tinkering.
	I think that we would all agree with that remark. Nobody is in favour of institutional tinkering; that is self-evident. However, that does not mean that we cannot envisage institutional improvements.
	That seems to be the central weakness in the Opposition amendment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) said, it must have required a huge amount of ingenuity to come up with that form of words. If the Opposition seriously do not believe that there can be any improvement to the EU's organisational arrangements after the expansion of the Union to 27 member states, they will have to put up a strong defence of how the current arrangements can continue to advance the cause of climate change.
	Many hon. Members have described the achievements of the EU to date in improving air and water quality, in taking noxious chemicals out of the air and in improving standards for vehicles and electrical equipment, but surely no one can believe that that is the end of the matter. In fact, when it comes to improving standards and the quality of the environment, we are only beginning a long journey that will go to 2050 and beyond. It is thus almost beyond belief to dismiss as completely irrelevant the very idea of any change to the EU's organisation, which is largely what the treaty is about. I ask forward-thinking Conservative Members to consider that carefully.

Mark Pritchard: rose

David Chaytor: I cannot give way in view of the time.
	If Conservative Members wish to dismiss the content of the treaty as mere institutional tinkering, one must ask why they feel so strongly about the need for a referendum. Either the treaty is about institutional tinkering, and thus the question of a referendum is completely irrelevant, or there is a powerful case for a referendum because the treaty has more significance. The Conservative party needs to get its act together and its thinking straight on this issue.
	Conservative Members seem to have forgotten that over the past 25 years every party that has been explicitly opposed to the European Union has lost the subsequent general election. That is largely because the public are far in advance of the Eurosceptic tendency. Whatever Conservative Members might think about the gut feeling of some of their party's members and their small band of core supporters, the anti-European tendency in the country today represents a minorityand not an election-winning minority. I encourage forward-thinking members of the Tory party to take that on board and to explain it to some of their colleagues. As long as the party has an intrinsic, obsessive, anti-European ethos, it will never come around to supporting the policies that are needed to deal responsibly with climate change.
	It is important that the EU reflects its new expansion with the involvement of 27 members rather than 15. It is important that it changes its arrangements, such as on qualified majority voting, and that we have a single voice to the outside world. Rather than having a presidency that rotates every six months, it should last for a longer period to give continuity to policy. The EU must be the leading group of nations in the world on advancing climate change policy.
	Howeverthis will be my final point, because I know that the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) wishes to speakclimate change cannot be advanced solely by top-down institutional structures. The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) seems to assume that because there was a gigantic market failure, there will suddenly be a gigantic market solution, but the market alone does not hold the solution. We will need not only institutional change at the political level, the encouragement of enterprise and the development of new science and technology, but individual behaviour change and the greater involvement of local and regional government throughout the European Union. Does the Minister for the Environment agree that, on climate change, we need not only the right policies at national and EU level, but far greater involvement of local government in the United Kingdom?

James Clappison: I make common cause with the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) to the extent that I have faith in the public. I wish him luck when he goes back to the public in Bury, North at the time of the next general election and explains why he voted against the referendum that was promised in his manifesto even though this treaty, by his own admission, is almost exactly the same as the original constitution, but now has the magical ingredient of six extra words about climate change.
	Important questions have been asked during the debate. We have heard well-informed speeches, and I would ask the same questions that others have posed about the emissions trading scheme. The EU is staking a lot on the scheme, so we need to ask searching questionsin the genuine sense of the term, rather than the sense in which the Government use itabout it.
	I share the sense of curiosity expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). I agree with him that this is an important subject. I am happy to debate it now and to scrutinise what little there is about climate change in the body of the treaty, but I feel a sense of discomfort that we have not had the opportunity on previous occasions to scrutinise matters such as borders and immigration and defence, whereunlike in the present casethere have been substantial changes to powers, institutional arrangements and treaty provisions. The treaty makes barely any change on environmental mattersit adds just six words, which were implicit in existing provisions. The European Union is already able to do all the things that the Secretary of State told us about on the basis of existing provisions.
	I am concerned about that. We are debating an important subject and I want answers to the questions that have been put, but I worry about the way in which this House is scrutinising the provisions of the treaty. It is just one more example of the inadequacy of our method of scrutinising very serious matters.

Gregory Barker: We have had a good debateI think that we all agree on that. The first Back Bencher to speak was the right hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who has a distinguished record on environmental matters. Although I do not always agree with everything he says, I acknowledge that he made some sensible comments on the future of European reform. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Joan Walley), a distinguished member of the Environmental Audit Committee, also spoke, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), who, in a well informed contribution, spoke movingly about world food shortages and concerns about biofuels, and about how Europe should deregulate more and grow more food.
	We also heard speeches from the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who spoke of the positive role for the EU in environmental matters, but expressed great consternation about the Government's denying a proper debate on the treaty more generally. The right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) drew attention to Drax and the fact that one chimney emits more CO2 than more than 100 small countriesan extraordinary figure that I had not heard before. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd) spoke with his usual expertise and broad understanding.
	Although I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter), he made his points with great passion and I found myself nodding in agreement with some of them. The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) displayed his usual knowledge. Usually when the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) speaks, I learn something; on this occasion, however, somewhat disappointingly, most of his remarks were about process and words, rather than the solutions with which he is normally associated. My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart), who is also a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, made an excellent speech: he has become quite an expert on biofuels.
	The hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) is also a great expert, but he, too, ended up talking about process and tinkering with institutional reform. Ultimately, his speech summed up what many of us feel about the debate, because he could not tell us one thing that the constitutional amendment will allow that the EU cannot already do or will not be able to do if the treaty is not passed. It is completely irrelevant. If any Labour Member would like to stand up now and tell me one substantive area where EU competency will be extended by adding those six words, I will gladly take an intervention. Answer there came none.
	This debate has been a waste of time in the context of debating the Lisbon treaty. Time spent in this place talking about climate change is never wasted, however; well-informed right hon. and hon. Members can be found in all parts of the House, and I always gain from hearing what others have to say. The genuine conviction felt in all parts of the House is apparent, and when we talk about climate change, we see Parliament at its best. When they got down to solutions, many of the speeches we have heard today demonstrated that point. Conservative Members also welcome the opportunity to flag up the treaty's failings, but the EU has effectively tackled all sorts of environmental challenges up to now without needing additional binding treaties. The Government are clearly all too aware of the irrelevance of the latest EU treaty to our UK and international efforts to tackle climate change. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) reminded us, the Foreign Secretary said as much. Despite that irrelevance, the Government have insisted on setting aside a whole day for debate on the Lisbon treaty issue of climate change. The Conservatives have argued today that it is more important to debate UK policy, and the policy delivery needed to drive down carbon emissions, delivery solutions and adaptation, than to discuss institutional reform and tinkering with treaties, which are irrelevant to the goal.
	In the time remaining, I shall consider a few examples of where the Government are going wrong in their performance on climate change. In the Climate Change Billa Bill that I am proud to say my party has been enhancing steadily throughout its passage through another placethe Government are rightly legislating to commit the UK to a minimum emissions reduction of 60 per cent. by 2050. I think that we all accept that that figure may have to be re-examined soon, but how can the Government expect significant carbon reductions in Britain when they have consistently underspent, cut and redirected budget commitments for energy efficiencyto say nothing of other thingsprimarily because of shortfalls in the budget of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs due to chronic mismanagement? How can the Secretary of State expect emissions reductions from the UK housing stock when the low carbon buildings programme, the capital grants scheme for energy efficiency, has been underfunded since its inception and is now being scrapped?
	How can the Government expect the development of a renewable technology economy in Britain when they do not offer the industry any long-term market confidence? First they tried to U-turn and squash the Merton rule for microgeneration technologies; then they tried to wiggle out of the EU 2020 renewable energy target. The Government have failed to support plans to build the world's first carbon capture and storage power station in Peterhead, opting instead for yet another round of dithering and consultation, followed by a competition. It is not that they are headed in the wrong direction; it is just that they cannot move fast enough. We reject that dithering, delay and incompetence. We reject institutional tinkering. What we really need are dynamic solutions to climate change. We need more vision, more ambition, more conviction and more delivery. We need robust policies that will deliver real change on the ground and drive dynamic industrial change in the economy.
	In December, David Cameron announced our party policy to introduce feed-in tariffs[Hon. Members: Who?] My right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) announced the tariffsa mechanism that has resulted in the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs across Europe. That policy could do the same for the UK by providing long-term market certainty to the British microgeneration industry and, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey noted, it could greatly enhance our energy security and lower our carbon emissions in the process.
	Our feed-in tariff policies are just the beginning. This afternoon at Imperial college, the shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), announced three more policies that will energise UK plc to start reducing our emissions on a significant scale while helping to grow our economy by creating policy initiatives at three ends of the market. The first is in start-up and venture capital. We have some of the finest research institutions and universities in the world, yet in Britain today it is much too difficult to turn bright ideas into viable businesses. Too many technologies have failed to reach the market, getting caught in the gap between a great idea and a viable company. That is why we announced plans today to establish green technology incubators across the UK that will allow more ideas from our finest minds to become reality.
	Secondly, Britain is privileged to have access to some of the world's finest financial minds and largest investors in the City of London. The Conservatives recognise what an enormous economic opportunity it would be for Britain if we could harness that talent and entrepreneurial spirit and direct it towards the dynamic de-carbonisation of the global economy. To that end, we have announced our intention to establish, in conjunction with the London stock exchange, the world's first dedicated trading market for companies focused on green technology. It will have its own listing criteria and its own set of principles and regulations. The green environmental market is designed to help London become the world's leading centre for the listing and trading of companies in the field of environmental technology. The GEM will build on the alternative investment market's success in attracting green technology companies, but will have its own distinct identity. That new market will help to drive the unprecedented levels of green investment required to transform Britain's economy. Only by unleashing the full potential of London's capital markets will we meet our ambitious goals and get the substantive investment that we require.
	Thirdly, the shadow Chancellor today announced our intention to introduce green individual savings accounts, which will enable the public to save more than they are currently allowed to, tax-free, provided that the funds are invested only in the most progressive, environmentally friendly companies. The green ISAsor GISAs, as some bright chap has named themwill engage the public in climate change issues in a new way and show them clearly the economic benefits of green investment. By providing lucrative new sources of investment, GISAs will create a race to the top, incentivising businesses to adopt environmentally friendly policies. At the moment, only 39 per cent. of FTSE 350 companies account for their carbon effectively. Hopefully the proposal will incentivise them and drive them all to do so.
	It is policies and incentives such as those that will allow Britain to deliver on our climate change commitments. They will deliver dynamic industrial change and create hundreds of thousands of new jobs in the economy. We are not afraid of change, and we are the only party that can deliver it.

Phil Woolas: I concur with the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) that this has been a very good debate. The knowledge and experience displayed in contributions from Members on both sides of the House on the issue of climate change has been impressive. The Opposition spokesmen's points about the treaty were less impressive. I suppose that congratulations are due to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle on reading out the shadow Chancellor's press release; he did it eloquently and efficiently. Unfortunately, as ever, things are different when one scratches the surface.
	Green incubators are a good idea: we have them. We have had them at the university of Manchester for donkey's years, and have been spending hundreds of millions of pounds on them. I suppose that the idea of share listing is good. The green savings account is a good idea, and I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for putting it forward. However, I do not want to be churlish; the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle is doing a good job of trying to square a circle, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) pointed out.
	The Conservatives have a problem. The debate has been on the amendment in the name of the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). The debate has presented us with a graphic display of the Conservative party's age-old problem of what to do about the issue of Europe. How is that problem to be squared with the Conservative party's new-found adherence to green policies? The Conservatives have been exposed; they are in a pickle. On the one hand, they like the six words on climate change that are in the treaty, but on the other they do not want the treaty. Later this afternoon, some of them will support the six words, and some of them will oppose them. Others want more than six words, and others still do not want any of the words. Most of them will vote against the whole treaty, even though they like the six words, but some of them will vote for it. All of them are confused.
	The fact is that if the six words, and the other words to which hon. Friends have referred, are simply tinkering, why are the Conservatives proposing a referendum on the treaty? The treaty is either developing the European Union and addressing points of principle, in which case they should have a referendum, or it is not, in which case they are wasting our time.

Graham Stuart: The simple point is that on climate change, the treaty makes no difference. On many other issues, it makes a great deal of difference.

Phil Woolas: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that confirmation that the treaty of Lisbon is not a radical giving-up of our sovereignty, but merely adds a few words.
	The Opposition spokesman accused my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of cynicism. How anybody could describe my right hon. Friend as cynical is beyond imagination, as anybody who knows him well would say, but the hon. Gentleman accused us of cynicism in calling the debate. He said that we were trying to mask the other issues and that six hours should not have been allocated to the debate on climate change this afternoon. The Opposition's amendment to the business motion on 28 January proposed six hours of debate on climate change, so how he can accuse the Government of cynicism is beyond me.
	Let me address some of the substantial policy and political issues. The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) correctly stated that it was wrong to say that the scientific debate was over. There are some who still disagree. Across the world, all countries, with the exception of Burma, now accept the scientific evidence of man-made climate change as a reality. However, I am delighted to inform the House about members of the flat earth society who still deny the existence of man-made climate change. One of them is Roger Helmer, Member of the European Parliament for the East Midlands for the Conservative party. Another is the President of the Czech Republic, Vclav Klausalthough not, I hasten to add, the Government of the Czech Republic.
	What is the association of those two members of the flat earth society with the Opposition? Mr. Roger Helmer, a renowned climate change denier, said in 2007 that
	climate change consensus is a journalistic fiction.
	He told the European Parliament in May 2007 that
	it would be cheaper to relocate the population of the Maldives than to implement the sort of emissions reductions that are proposed.
	Who is the Conservative party putting on to the temporary committee on climate change in the European Parliament? Mr. Roger Helmer.  [Interruption.] Conservative Members do not like having their divisions exposed. I will answer the points of substance.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the Minister will now address his remarks to the amendment and the treaty.

Phil Woolas: I take your instruction, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was just getting to the partnership between the Conservative party and the Czech President, but I will pass on that.
	Greenhouse gases in this country have gone down since 1997 by 7 per cent. Part of the reason why the United Kingdom provides such strong leadership in the United Nations conversations is that while our greenhouse gas emissions have gone down, our gross domestic product has gone up, thus showing the world, along with other European Union countries, that the lesson of Sir Nicholasnow LordStern's report that the two tracks can be decoupled is alive and well and evident in the UK.
	Our record on these matters is a proud one. The Opposition spokesman said that there had been inaction. He failed to mention the carbon emissions reduction targetsthe 1.5 billion that has been mobilised to transform and retrofit UK homes. He failed to mention the climate change agreements or the carbon reduction commitments to be introduced in the UK next year. He failed to mention the raft of measures that have been put in place so that we reduce the emissions in this country and so that we can, in co-operation with our partners in the European Union, provide the leadership that some Opposition Members have been graceful enough to acknowledge.
	On no issue is the need for international co-operation greater than on climate change. On no issue do we need the European Union more than on climate change. That is why it is important that the treaty of Lisbon recognises that [Interruption.] The hon. Gentlemen jeering from a sedentary position have to reconcile their attempt to con the British public, by trying to rebrand their party as the green party, with their opposition to the treaty of Lisbon.

Question put, That the amendment be made:
	 The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 345.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 It being more than three and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Madam Deputy Speaker  put forthwith the Main Question, pursuant to Orders [28 January and this day].
	 The House divided: Ayes 356, Noes 165.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House approves the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning climate change.

Orders of the Day

European Union (Amendment) Bill
	  
	[8th Allotted Day]

(Any selected amendments to clause 2 relating to climate change)
	 Further considered in Committee.

[Sylvia Heal  in the Chair]

Clause 2
	  
	Addition to list of treaties

Dominic Grieve: I beg to move amendment No. 13, page 1, line 12, after 'excluding', insert
	'(i) any provision imposing an obligation on the Parliament of the United Kingdom; and
	(ii) '.

Sylvia Heal: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 5 Government opinion on adherence to subsidiarity
	'(1) The relevant Secretary of State shall present to Parliament his opinion on whether a draft European Union legislative act forwarded to national parliaments under the Protocol on the Role of National Parliaments in the European Union complies with the principles of conferral, subsidiarity and proportionality, set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union.
	(2) This opinion shall include supporting evidence.'.
	New clause 8 Bill of Rights 1689
	'Notwithstanding any provision of the European Communities Act 1972, nothing in this Act shall affect or be construed by any court in the United Kingdom as affecting Article IX of the Bill of Rights 1689.'.
	New clause 9 Supremacy of Parliament
	'Notwithstanding any provision of the European Communities Act 1972, nothing in this Act shall affect or be construed by any court in the United Kingdom as affecting the supremacy of the United Kingdom Parliament.'.

Dominic Grieve: The amendment raises an important issue in respect of the textual interpretation of what the European treaty says. I am sure that when the Minister replies, he will tell the House that it is his opinion that no provision in the treaty would impose an obligation on the Parliament of the United Kingdom. My reading of the text makes me doubt that that is the case.
	The wording is, frankly, odd. It includes references to national Parliaments' which were placed for the most partthat was the intentionto emphasise the principles of subsidiarity. However, when one looks at them detail, one finds that they seem to make the national Parliaments subsidiary. Let me give some examples. The original wording of article 8C was:
	National Parliaments shall contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union,
	so that the principle of subsidiarity is respected. The tone is pretty patronising in that context, but it is surely for Parliament to decide what it may or may not wish to do. However, when the Minister went before the European Scrutiny Committee on 2 October, he emphasised that he thought the problem was one of drafting rather than of intent. He went on to say that changes would be brought about to the text before the matter was finalised, and indeed, they were. In at least two places where it appeared to impose a mandatory shall on national Parliaments, the shall was removed, although in one case it was not, and I shall come on to that.
	The Foreign Secretary said that he considered that all member states understood that we were in favour of Parliament being clear about its responsibilities and fulfilling them. However, the ESC asked the right hon. Gentleman a question that at earlier sittings it had put to the Minister for Europeshould not the draft's use of the word must in respect of national parliaments be altered to may? The Government have never been able to secure a concession from their European partners to that effect, and it would be useful if the Minister could tell us why.
	I shall give the House another example. The original wording of article 63 was that national parliaments
	shall ensure that the proposals and legislative initiatives submitted under Sections 4 and 5 of this Chapter comply with the principle of subsidiarity in accordance with the arrangements laid down by the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
	Again, the Government secured an amendment that removed the word shall, although on this occasion it was not substituted by the word may. One oddity of this matter is that, inevitably, we have been considering the English text of the treaty, but it is worth looking at the French text, which has equal validity.

Jim Murphy: The French text?

Dominic Grieve: I shall enlighten the Minister about the French text. I have referred already to article 8C and to article 63, which in its final form became article 61B. Nowhere in either article did the French text use the equivalents of shall or may. I hope, Mrs. Heal, that you will forgive me for briefly using a foreign language in this place, but the French text of article 8C states:
	Les parlements nationaux contribuent activement au bon fonctionnement de l'Union.

David Howarth: C'est exactement la mme chose.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) says, C'est exactement la mme chose, but I am afraid that what I quoted is exactement pas la mme chose, and I shall explain why.
	First, the Minister must explain how, when the original text of the treaty was brought out in both English and French, the French text was as I read it outthat is, without the use of the words peut and doit, which we render in English as may and must. The French text adopted the neutral form that I have just described, whereas the English text used the expression shall. The Minister cannot simply gloss over the fact that the two versions are very different. He must explain to the Committee why the translators of the text used those two different forms.
	Next we have to ask whether the removal of the word shall makes any difference. I have read the French text again with care, and I do not think that it does. The Minister will know that French is a more elastic language than English, but that it has a more restricted vocabulary. I believe that, in their French form, the text of articles 8C and 61B conveys the force of the word shall even though the French equivalentdoitdoes not appear in them.
	On any reading, the treaty text is a very odd document, in both French and English. Indeed, it does not read like a treaty text at all: rather, it reads like a constitutional document that sets out the respective roles of national parliaments and EU institutions. The requirements that it lays down appear entirely mandatory.
	We are considering an important issue because legislation is about words. The structure of our consideration of the treaty, with general debates and short periods to consider amendments, means that we have not had the opportunity to conduct some proper textual criticism, which several hon. Members, including me, have frequently applied to domestic legislation.
	We are in an odd position in that we started with two texts in French and English that were supposed to be identical, we changed the English text, but not the French text, and the Minister now tells us that the English text expresses voluntary activity by national Parliaments, whereas my reading of the French text is that it could be interpreted as mandatory. I also see a mandatory element in the English text.

David Howarth: I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman's point about textual analysis because the debate is about what the words mean. However, the tense in the French text is that used to establish roles and is neither mandatory nor permissive. It simply describes a new arrangement. There is no easy way to translate that into English.

Dominic Grieve: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but does that not highlight precisely the difficulty of the textual approach to the treaty, which was born from creating a constitution that was subsequently abandoned? It reads not like a legal definition of treaty obligations but like a constitution, with many implications for the way the relationships among the component parts operate in practice. If everybody agreed that that is what they wanted, it might not present any great difficulty, but we are not agreed, and there has been much polemic and argument about the extent to which national sovereignty and the actions of the House may be restricted as a result of the treaty.
	I am always prepared to listen to the Minister, and I have read his comments to the Committees before which he has appeared, but the Government keep saying that Conservative Members are worrying about nothing. I am not so sure about that because I worry when I read texts that appear to be open to ambivalent interpretation. However, if the Minister is right, our amendment is innocuous.

William Cash: In Alice Through the Looking Glass, Lewis Carroll writes:
	'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to meanneither more nor less.'
	'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you  can make words mean so many different things.'
	'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be Masterthat's all.'
	That is the key question because the master is not to be this national Parliament.

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend is correct. At the end of the day, the question is who is master in interpreting the treaty provisions. We must be prepared to make clear what is required to ensure that the treaty conforms, if not to our political viewpoint then to what the Government tell us that it is. That is why we have tabled the amendment.

David Heath: The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to say that there is inconsistency between articles 61A, 61B and 61C. They are consecutive articles, but two say may and one contains nothing but the present tense in the phrase national Parliaments ensure. If that meant anything, it would be a statement of fact, and a description. However, it is not, as is borne out by arrangements in the House. We should be worried that we have no mechanism to date for enjoying the benefits of subsidiarity, which the treaty affects to provide.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman is right. Although unfortunately I could not be present in the Chamber yesterday, I read the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), and she made precisely the same point.

Patricia Hewitt: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong about this and is making very heavy weather of it. Not only is article 61B, in both the French and the English versions, clearly a descriptive rather than a mandatory statement, butthis point has not yet been madeit specifically refers to the arrangements set out in the protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. The protocol rightly places on the Commission all the duties to inform national Parliaments of what it proposes to do, and national Parliaments may or may not choose to respond and express their views on whether those legislative proposals conform with the principles of subsidiarity. We should concentrate on how we in this Parliament ensure that the Commission observes the principles of subsidiarity, rather than worrying about the nonsensical suggestion that the Parliament is being mandated to do something when clearly it is not.

Dominic Grieve: I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Lady by disagreeing with her. As she will see, article 9 has preserved the word shall. It states
	The European Parliament and national Parliaments shall together determine the organisation and promotion of effective and regular interparliamentary cooperation within the Union.
	The right hon. Lady may be surprised to learn that in the French text of article 9 the word doit, or shall, does not appear. It states, in exactly the same terms:
	Le Parlement europen et les parlements nationaux dfinissent ensemble l'organisation et la promotion d'une coopration interparlementaire efficace.
	Although the shall was preservedI hope the Minister will tell us in a moment why it was retained in this clause whereas, apparently on the Government's insistence, it was removed from the othersI should like to know why that has had absolutely no impact on the French text. In a context that is mandatory, it continues to use a form of words that appears to be simply definitional. I must tell the Minister, and the right hon. Lady, that I think that is because as far as the French draftsmen were concerned, it did not make any difference, it has never made any difference, and it still will not make any difference to what the Government have done since then.

Denis MacShane: The hon. and learned Gentleman once asked me for a good translation of the word racaille, used by President Sarkozy of people he did not like.

David Howarth: That is not parliamentary language!

Denis MacShane: Possibly not.
	I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is making extraordinarily heavy weather of this. The plain fact is that shall also contains a future component, which is easier to use in English because we use gerunds and compound verbs more than the French do. This is the German version:
	Die nationalen Parlamente tragen aktiv zur guten Arbeitsweise der Union bei.
	That, like the French and the English, is very clear. I really think that the hon. and learned Gentlemanwhose knowledge of French I respect, but it is not completeought to back away, because he is not doing his case much good.

Dominic Grieve: When not one Member but two start talking about making heavy weather, I begin to think that I am probably getting somewhere.
	I disagree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman. No explanation has been advanced as to why the text differs so markedly in the two languages. When my late mother used to tell me that I shall do something, I took that as a mandatory injunction, and on the whole it happened. The fact that it might have been couched in the future tense does not seem to me to matter a bean. The point is that our job as a Parliament in scrutinising and passing legislation is to ensure that it conforms with what we want to achieve. Therefore, I return to my original question. If the text is as the Minister appeared to state to the ESC in or shortly before October, the Government ought to welcome amendment No. 13 as it will reassure Members who are currently not reassured that there will be no mischief from the wording of the treaty in these areas. At the same time, if I understand the Minister's position correctlyI shall hear more about that shortlyin these circumstances it cannot do any harm to the Government's adherence to the treaty.

William Cash: Will my hon. and learned Friend re-emphasise the point that interpretation of these words will be performed by the European Court of Justice, which I regard as the master in this case? It will determine what we may say, under section 3 of the European Communities Act 1972, and we cannot then disagree. That is part of the problem. The bottom line is that we must protect ourselves from that possible interpretation.

Dominic Grieve: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and what he says pre-empts my next point. Ultimately, this treaty is justiciable and is open to the interpretation of the ECJ. We must make it clear now what we understand the treaty to be, and ensure that, were the interpretation of the ECJ to differ from that of the Minister, we properly protect the public in this country and this Parliament from being overridden or mandated to do anything.

David Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. and learned Friend outlines a highly plausible situation in which the ECJ has to arbitrate or decide. Is he worried by the treaty requirement on the Court to practise mutual sincere co-operation with the other institutions of the European Union, not with member states? In any dispute about this obligation between us and the institutions of the Union the jury is already rigged against us.

Dominic Grieve: My right hon. Friend will recollect that in the crime and justice day debate I expressed the view that while the ECJ had many virtues it was in many respects the creature of the institutions that had created it and that in the light of its track record it appeared to have a clear agenda of enforcing, within the parameters set down by legislation, the acquis communautaire. Therefore, I agree with my right hon. Friend that under the treaty it does not have to put the views of national Parliaments or national sovereignty first.
	We cannot, however, complain if we legislate badly. The power lies with us. I have made that point to some of my hon. Friends. I take the view that if we get ourselves into a mess in areas of EU law, it is in many cases entirely our own fault and responsibility, and not the result of some sinister conspiracy elsewhere. We tolerate sloppy legislation, and we fail to identify areas where our national interest might be jeopardised and to take stepssuch as those that I currently propose to the Ministerthat would solve problems and would, far from creating greater tension within the EU, go a long way towards making it run smoother.

Michael Connarty: If the hon. and learned Gentleman had read the  Hansard record of yesterday's debates or had been in the Chamber listening, he would have known that I dealt with the point raised by the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory). As he says, it is stated that such mutual co-operation should be practised, but it is also stated that the institutions must act in the interests of the member states. He is, therefore, wrong to say that the institutions of the EU are not charged with that duty. There was a difference of opinion in the ESC, but a majority supported my view.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I certainly was not seeking to suggest that the institutions of the Union were not operating in accordance with the interests of the member states. However, the interests of the member states are a collective expression. Within that, the interests of individual member states can be jeopardised, and they sometimes are.
	Robust and active participation in the European Union does not preclude this Parliamentor, for that matter, this Governmentfrom identifying important areas of national interest and standing up for them. I disagree with some of the things that the Minister and the Prime Minister say they achieved, but they argued at considerable length that that is exactly what they did prior to the signing of the treaty. Indeed, we have only to look at the treaty to see that other countries, such as Ireland and Denmark, did exactly the same.

Patricia Hewitt: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way for a second time on this point; it is clearly important to him. Article 8C is headed National Parliaments contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union. Let us leave aside for the moment our disagreement, in which he thinks that that is mandatory and I think that it is descriptive. It goes on:
	by seeing to it that the principle of subsidiarity is respected in accordance with the procedures provided for in the...Protocol.
	As a distinguished lawyer, he must surely admit that the European Court of Justice could rule on whether a national Parliament had breached thisin my viewnon-existent duty only if a case were brought. But brought by whom? By the Commission? Does he really believe in the bizarre fantasywhich the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) clearly sharesthat the Commission, which is given a duty in the treaty to keep national Parliaments informed, would take a national Parliament to the European Court of Justice for failing to express its opinion on whether the Commission had acted in accordance with the principles of subsidiarity? That is complete nonsense, and, in my view, the hon. and learned Gentleman should move on to something more substantial.

Dominic Grieve: As a lawyer, I have always tried to look for possible pitfalls and to find sensible ways of skirting round them. I tend also to do that when I encourage my clients to avoid litigation. It is a wise course of action, even if it does lawyers out of money from time to time. If I see an area of ambiguity, the first thing I do is highlight it so that the Minister has an opportunity to respond. Heaven knows I have done this often enough. I tabled 318 amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Bill because I thought that it was a highly ambiguous document. Indeed, it has since been shown to be woefully deficient in some areas of interpretation. We should also ask ourselves whether the ambiguity can be cured in a way that provides general reassurance without undermining the Government's primary intentions. What I find fascinating about the approach of the right hon. Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt) is that she has not yet told me what is wrong with the amendment.

William Cash: My hon. and learned Friend might remember the seminal case of Costa  v. ENEL. If I may, I will quote briefly from the ECJ's findings.
	The transfer by the states from their domestic legal system to the community legal system of the rights and obligations arising under the treaty carries with it a permanent limitation of their sovereign rights, against which a subsequent unilateral act incompatible with the concept of the community cannot prevail.
	In other words, the root of what my hon. and learned Friend is sayingand in contradistinction to the assertion by the right hon. Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt)is that the European Court of Justice already has a view on its constitutional role, which is that, according to its assertions, domestic law cannot be allowed to prevail against Community law.

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the fact that there is Court authority in precisely the terms he identifies. Exactly where that will fall might be an interesting issue of academic speculation. However, as it appearsI have to accept the Government's word for thisthat the Government certainly do not wish it to fall in the area of parliamentary sovereignty or, for that matter, of parliamentary action, it seems to me that spelling out clearly what the Government understand the position to be by accepting amendment No. 13 would be very wise. As I say, I wait to hear from the right hon. Member for Leicester, West what so irritates her about amendment No. 13 or what she thinks might be so damaging to our participation in the European institutions. I am at a loss to understand that.

Rob Marris: Perhaps I can assist the hon. and learned Gentleman. I might be reading this differently from him, but article 13 of the treaty on the functioning of the EU states:
	In formulating and implementing the Union's agriculture, fisheries, transport, internal market, research and technological development and space policies, the Union and the Member States shall, since animals are sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals.
	That is an obligation on the UK as a member state of the EU, and one that I welcome. The hon. and learned Gentleman's amendment, as I understand it, would remove that obligation.

Dominic Grieve: It would remove it, but only in so far as anything in the treaty sought to impose an obligation on this Parliament to act in a particular way. One argument that has been put consistently, not only by the Government but by supporters of the EUindeed, it is a view with which I have a considerable degree of sympathy when I approach it from a lawyer's angleis that any surrendering of sovereignty by this House should be voluntary. Equally, if the House wants to take back any area of sovereignty it should be able to do so, although it might face consequences under its international treaty obligations. I have picked out the areas that concern me and highlighted the fact that I did not understand that it was the Government's intention to impose through these treaty obligations on Parliament to act in a particular fashion.

Patricia Hewitt: indicated assent.

Dominic Grieve: The right hon. Lady nods; perhaps there is a slight difference of opinion between her and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris). This country might not want to differ in any way from a position adopted by the EU. We might want to engage in a common statement of our intentions.
	The Minister acknowledged when he appeared before the European Scrutiny Committee last year that there was an issue with the provisions that I have highlighted. The question that arises, before we get carried away by excessively nebulous concepts, is whether the Government have succeeded in curing the problem. My reading of the textparticularly when I read it in French, which is a slight advantage that I have from being conversant and fluent in that languageis that the Government have not succeeded at all. The ambiguity has been left open, despite the fact that the Government said that that was precisely what they wanted to close. Given those circumstances, amendment No. 13 or a similar measure could solve the Government's problem and reassure me.

David Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. and learned Friend has already quoted from article 9 of the protocol on national Parliaments, which requires this Parliament to co-operate regularly with other Parliaments in the EU. There is no other way of interpreting article 9. In future, we might not wish to co-operate with the European Parliament. History is littered with examples of Parliaments having disputes. It is a real possibility that a failure to co-operate could come before the European Court of Justice. We must protect our interests by ensuring that the wording is not ambiguous.

Dominic Grieve: I agree entirely. I have no doubt that if the Minister wishes to provide an argument to show why my right hon. Friend is wrong, he will do so, but I have not heard such an argument yet.
	The article that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West identified refers to the obligations of member states. He will appreciate from the way in which I have presented my argument that I am specifically interested in the obligations that appear to be imposed on Parliaments. Although member states and their Parliaments might be closely connected, they are nevertheless not one and the same thing. This House conducts its business not merely as a creature of the Executive, even though some of us would argue that we remain far too much under the Executive's tutelage and would like to remove ourselves further from it. However, the way in which the House works ultimately concerns our privileges as parliamentarians. Providing an adequate mechanism to reassure the public and hon. Members strikes me as rather a sensible idea, which is why I commend amendment No. 13 to the Committee.
	Let me touch on the new clauses that are grouped with amendment No. 13. New clause 5, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) tabled, would allow the relevant Secretary of State to present to Parliament
	his opinion on whether a draft European Union legislative act forwarded to national parliaments under the Protocol...complies with the principles of conferral, subsidiarity and proportionality
	and to produce supporting evidence. Given the difficulties that we have been having with European Union directives, the proposal strikes me as immensely sensible. I shall wait to hear how my right hon. Friend develops his argument, but I hope that the Minister will be able to give the measure a positive response.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) tabled new clauses 8 and 9. New clause 8 has a direct link to amendment No. 13 and relates to article IX of the Bill of Rights 1689. I am always a little hesitant about getting bogged down in the Bill of Rights because I am conscious that some of its provisions are, to describe them politely, rather old-fashioned. For example, I am not sure that the right for Protestants to bear arms suitable to their conditions has a great deal of relevance in the present day. However, it is absolutely right that article IX has been, and continues to be, of relevance to the independence of the House, because it provides:
	That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament.
	This is a live issue. The measure has been quoted in litigation in the past decade. In fact, it is the bedrock on which parliamentary independence rests. My hon. Friend has thus made an important contribution to the debate by tabling the new clause.

William Cash: My hon. and learned Friend might care to refer to the ruling by the former Speaker, Baroness Boothroyd, in respect of litigation on the Maastricht treaty. She made the rulingand the courts backed offwhen there was an attempt to challenge the ratification, as compared with the legality of what was being discussed at that time.

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend is right. His memory and knowledge of these matters goes back a long way. It is correct that that was one aspect of an assertion of the rights under article IX of the Bill of Rights. Of course, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and it is perfectly possible to envisage circumstances in which that might happen in another context in relation to the European Union. New clause 8 is important. I hope that the Minister will give it careful consideration and I wait to hear what he has to say.
	New clause 9 relates to the supremacy of Parliament. Again, the Minister must address that important issue, which is tied in with the other amendments that we are considering.
	I do not want to take up more of the Committee's time, but I come back to amendment No. 13 and repeat my challenge to the Minister and Labour Members who appear to think that we are dealing with abstract issues about which we should not bother. I do not think that they are abstract. Will they please tell me what is wrong with the amendment and why including it in the Bill would do any harm to the Government's intentions?

Michael Connarty: The record of the European Scrutiny Committee makes it clear that we were exercised by this challenge, especially as it relates to the Bill of Rights and the word shall. We believed that whoever drafted the English version could translate the French so that its effect was compulsive in the sense that, as the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said, it was a description of the reality of what the treaty would create. It may be that it was a throwback to the treaty for a constitution for the European Unionpeople keep referring to the original treaty as the constitution, but it was a treaty for a constitutionand was seen in that light by those who drafted it two or three years ago; and in the redrafting, some people may have kept that interpretation. We were slightly concerned that if we left in shall and did not insert may, it would not be clear that there was no compulsion on Parliaments.
	In the light of Ministers' evidence to us, especially the Foreign Secretary, we accepted that Ministers felt that they had removed the offending element of compulsion by removing the word shall. However, as we said in our third and final report of the last Session, we were disappointed about not getting may in. That would have clarified the matter beyond doubt. Yesterday, in an intervention on the Minister for Europe, I related the fact that in a recent meeting of the Chairmen of European Scrutiny Committees throughout Europe, a Chairman from another country said shall and, when asked about it later, said, But they mustit's in the treaty.
	Fundamentally, that is because some Governments and some Parliaments see themselves as giving up their role to the European dimension. Having taken evidence from Ministers and discussed the matter both formally and informally with the Minister for Europe and Ministers in all the Departments representing this country, I do not believe that we have ever given up that position to Europe. I believe that Ministers will fight the corner, but it will have to be fought, because it is not clear that the other side has given up its position, either.

Dominic Grieve: I have read the hon. Gentleman's intervention yesterday. I was rather struck that the Minister did not answer his question, saying simply:
	It is clearwe are precise about thisthat we responded to concerns that he raised. He has been fair enough to observe that in another place.[ Official Report, 26 February 2008; Vol. 472, c. 938.]
	However, he did not go on to explain why the Government had done so. That is what I hope the Minister will explain this afternoon.

Michael Connarty: That is a helpful intervention. I have every confidence, because I do not only speak in this Chamber; I follow these matters up with Ministersthat is what Back Benchers do. The Minister is aware that some people in other countries see themselves as more federalist and are more willing to submit the idea that the phraseeven in EnglishParliaments contribute to is a description of how they must act at all times, whereas we do not, this Minister does not, and, I believe, our Government do not.
	In relation to shall, we were certainly worried about the Bill of Rights. On how we should proceed now, we must accept that, in the negotiation procedure that created the treaty, there was some room for Euro-fudge. What we must be is UK-firm against the Euro-fudge, or we will end up in a position where, in practice, other Governments and other Parliaments will expect us to act as though we were compelled. That is why I continue to raise the matter, not only on behalf of my Committee members, but on behalf of Parliament. We want our Ministers to be firm. The Opposition Front Benchers want to hear how they will be firm. If they are not firm enough, I hope and believe that my Committee and this House will remain determined to put some backbone into the negotiations.

David Heath: May I put to the hon. Gentleman an alternative construction, which I have not heard mentioned, that relates to the issue of subsidiarity? Had the wording that national Parliaments shall ensure subsidiarity been retained, might it not have been to exclude the possibility of an Executive ensuring subsidiarityin other words, conferring an exclusive role on Parliament? I believe that to be the intention of the legislation. The fact that it has been weakened by the removal of shall in this sense does not place an obligation on Parliament but removes a responsibility that we should enjoy. The House should ensure subsidiarity, not Members on the Treasury Bench.

Michael Connarty: I think that the hon. Gentleman is misinterpreting it. The answer to that was given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt). There are sections that say that Parliaments may respond to the subsidiarity issue, and that is the correct interpretation. Having dealt during the past nine years with the Commission and the machinery of bureaucracy, I do not have the warm opinion of them that the hon. Gentleman has. When they say shall, they mean to compel, not to empower; I can assure him of that.
	I do not think that the amendments are necessary. The debate is necessary, because it gives the Government a chance to tell us how they will face the challenge if anyone comes to interpret the treaty in the way that it might be interpreted, which would be detrimental to the rights of Parliament and the people of this country.

Peter Lilley: Surely the issue is not what the hon. Gentleman thinks, what the Government think or whether the Government are robust, but what the treaty actually meansnamely, what the European Court of Justice interprets it to mean. That casts a shadow forward. If a Cabinet receives advice from the Law Officers that a provision means a certain thing, it is inconceivable that the Cabinet will do otherwise; I can assure him of that from my own experience. The issue need not even get to the Court before that strict legal interpretation carries effect, whatever the Government may wish.

Michael Connarty: On the question of the role of the European Court of Justice and any Cabinet's interpretation of what it says, presumably the Cabinet would be at the European Court of Justice fighting our corner, not just waiting passively for a judgment.
	I am honest about this. I believe that our team went to challenge shall and get may, because they knew that that would win praise from anyone who was being critical. We were perhaps seen as being critical when we were not trying to be; we were just trying to be honest. I think that our team won shall and then tried for may and did not get itin other words, those with whom they were negotiating would not give them two victories, saying, You've got one; we're not going to give up on the other, so you have to take this. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has been there at the sort of negotiations that do not get one everything. I think that Ministers came back thinking, We've got enough to satisfy Parliament and perhaps to satisfy the European Scrutiny Committee, if that was what they were worried about, but at the end of the day they still felt that they could have come back with may. However, we accept that they probably thought that they got as much as they could from the negotiation process. Now this Government and all future Governments will have to fight to make the interpretation that is beneficial to this Parliament apply in every case, because there is no doubt that others will try to win back a more compulsive interpretation of contribute.

James Clappison: I know that the hon. Gentleman cares deeply about the issue, but does it not remain the case, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) said, that what matters is the interpretation that will be placed on those words? Did not the European Scrutiny Committee judge in the conclusions of its report, after the Government had tried and failed to get the changes, that
	The statement 'National parliaments contribute to the effective functioning of the European Union' is one from which an obligation can readily be inferred?

Michael Connarty: The Committee did say that, and I quoted part of that report yesterday. The point is that the obligation can readily be inferred, and there will no doubt be those who wish to infer it, but they are not in the House, in the Government or in future UK Governments. It will be inferred by others who are trying to interpret the words in that way. What Parliament, the people who listen to and read our debates and I want to hear from the Minister is what show of strength the Government will give, and whether they will fight that corner and win on every occasion. That is why I do not think that the amendments are necessary, although they are useful, as they allow the Government to explain their position.

David Howarth: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty). I agree with a great deal of what he said, but I put a slightly different interpretation on how the situation came about. It always struck me that there was never really any problem with shall. It was always meant in a descriptive or performative way. The problem has come about because of the attempt at renegotiation. One could argue that the position is worse than it was when we started to try to renegotiate, because the resistance to the word may has apparently caused a problem with the interpretation of various articles that I did not think existed.
	Without much doubt, contribute in article 8C is meant to be either a description of how things will work or, even less worryingly for the House, performative. In other words, when the things in paragraphs (a) to (e) happen, it constitutes the national Parliaments contributing
	actively to the good functioning of the Union.
	There is therefore no problem even with an implied obligation, because it would be fulfilled by virtue of those things happening. The problem that amendment No. 13 purports to address is, sadly, largely of our own making. It is a red herringand we have well and truly smoked this herring into its present state. The best solution would be to have a debate now, and for the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) to withdraw his amendment. I am sure that the Government will offer reasonable clarification.

William Cash: I fear that I have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The significance of the words that we have been discussingcontribuent or contribute, and shallrelates to the arena in which they are supposed to operate. On top of all the points that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) made, we need to concentrate on the words
	contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union,
	because essentially what is being said relates to the implementation of the treaties to achieve the functioning of the European Union. That in turn goes straight back to sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act 1972, which is the mechanism through which we carry out the provisions of the treaties by implementing them in our law, subject to the fact that European law shall prevail, through the European Court of Justice, in that interpretation.

David Howarth: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns, but if he reads article 8C all the way through he will see that that interpretation is not sustainable. Every paragraph in the article starts with a word such as through, by, or by taking. Paragraph (a), for example, says that national Parliaments contribute to the good functioning of the Union
	(a) through being informed by the institutions of the Union.
	I cannot see how that would give rise to any sort of obligation on national Parliaments. The provisions are a description of the ways in which national Parliaments contribute to the good functioning of the Union. I cannot see an obligation behind those words.

William Cash: Let's wait and see.

David Howarth: The hon. Gentleman says that, but there will always be a problem of that sort with human languages and courts. There will never be absolute certainty or clarity about any legislative instrument.
	I turn to the other new clauses before us. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) for his new clause 8 on the Bill of Rights, but I cannot follow him on his new clause 9 on parliamentary supremacy. In new clause 8 he has come across a form of words and a way of dealing with a possible problem which is, in the immortal phrase, mostly harmless. The good thing about new clause 8 is that it concentrates on a traditional English way of dealing with problems by focusing on the remedy that someone might obtain, whereas new clause 9 is rather in the realms of theory.
	However, I am not entirely convinced any more that article IX of the Bill of Rights in its present form is desirable. There are problems with a legislative assembly being entirely immune to legal review. That tends to lead to a situation of lawlessness where arbitrary power can be exercised and minorities can be oppressed. I would not go as far as the late Member for New Ross in 1881, who described what sometimes happens in the House as unmitigated despotism, but there is a problem.
	Nevertheless, the way to deal with that problem is certainly not to allow changes in article IX to come about by some kind of accident through changes in European legislation. If we were to reform article IX we should do so in a way that is proper and convenient for us across the entire range of possible legal problems, rather than only those that arise out of our relationship with the European Union.
	The question to ask about new clause 8, which might be a problem in the minds of my colleagues, is whether it might prevent ratification of the treaty. I do not think it can. That problem arises in many of the amendments tabled by certain hon. Members, but not in this case. The argument against the new clause must be only that it is not necessary. It is already the case that nothing in existing European legislation threatens article IX. I shall be interested to hear from the hon. Gentleman whether he can point to any changes specifically in the Lisbon treaty that would have that effect. We have had the experience of the past quarter of a century with the legal position being fundamentally the same as it is now, and so far no obvious problems have arisen.

William Cash: As an immediate response, I give as a sort of example something said on the Floor of the House. In the proceedings in Parliament, subject to the rules of the House being enforced by the Speaker, a Member might use language that was detrimental to another Member of the House. The question of xenophobia might arise, although there is no definition of xenophobia in European legislation. Proceedings in the House which included a xenophobic phrase would not be questionable, subject only to the rules of the House on unparliamentary language. In the absence of protection under my new clause 8 for the Bill of Rights article IX, those proceedings could be challengeable in the European Court. One could think of many other examples.

David Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the problem, put simply, being about whether anyone could obtain an injunction against the Speaker to prevent the Speaker from putting a particular question to the House. However, that is such an implausible circumstance that I cannot see how it could arise; the courts would have to have entirely abandoned not only the words of the Bill of Rights, but its entire spirit and structural importance. The hon. Gentleman has produced an excellent, elegant solution to a problem that does not yet exist. I shall be interested to hear his comments in support of his new clause.
	I cannot support the hon. Gentleman's new clause on supremacy. The problem with the word supremacy is that it has too many different meanings. When people talk about supremacy, they often confuse political capabilitya capacity to do thingswith theories about which legal order can be changed by Acts of a particular Parliament.
	Even in respect of that second interpretation, I sometimes get the impression that people who talk about the supremacy of Parliament want to get to a situation in which this Parliament can make European law. That is impossible; the legislative supremacy of this Parliament relates only to its ability to change the British legal order. We will never be in a position to change the European legal order. What keeps coming up in our debates is the question of what happens when those two legal orders clash. When that happens, it seems to me that there is nothing that we can do to alter the result as the hon. Gentleman wants.

William Cash: I respect the hon. Gentleman, who is a distinguished lawyer from Cambridge university. The problem is surely this: implementing the treaties made by prerogative, which are then translated into UK law through the combination of sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act 1972, effectively produces a circle within a vacuum of representation. On the face of it, we cannot disagree with the arrangements; we cannot specificallyso it is saidamend the provisions, because we are bound by those sections of the 1972 Act. That is where the problem lies and where the centre of this legal conundrum's gravity exists. We have to break free from it.

David Howarth: I see what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but we are bound by our own Act; we have decided that that should be so. We could always decide not to be bound by it, but until then we are in the European legal order, which decides its rules by its own procedures. We cannot change the European legal order; it can change its rules only by its own procedures. We can, however, change the rules of the legal system of this country, and that always includes the possibility of repealing the 1972 Act and withdrawing from the entire structure.

William Cash: This exchange is a useful introduction to the whole question. It does not necessarily follow that repeal would be necessary; perhaps only an amendment would be necessary. In those circumstances, the prospect of amendment is most emphatically understood to be a possibility in respect of House of Lords judgments that I shall cite later, if I get the chance.

David Howarth: The hon. Gentleman will presumably quote cases such as McCarthys Ltd.  v . Smith, in which Lord Denning said that if this Parliament were to pass an Act incompatible with European law, and yet not withdraw from the European Union, the English judges would follow what we say. That is certainly one view; there are others. Professor David Feldman, who, among other things, is professor of constitutional law at Cambridge universityhe used to work in this Housesuggested that what might happen is that the English judges would refer the question to the European Court of Justice, which would then, working within its frame of reference, come to a different decision. That was the point that I was trying to make about there being different legal orders. We are supreme within our own legal order, but not somebody else's.

William Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that in the Factortame case, for example, Lord Bridge clearly stated that we did what we had done in this House on a voluntary basis, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said earlier? That is the key point. The 1972 Act is a voluntary surrender. The issue therefore becomes circular, and ultimately a matter of political will, but it must be addressed within a proper legal framework.

David Howarth: I agree with the hon. Gentleman to this extent: it is our doing that we are in this club. While we are in the club, we are bound by its rules. If we object to the rules, we can leave the club, but we cannot ourselves, by ourselves, change those rulesthey can be changed only according to the rules of that club.

Dominic Grieve: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's broad premise, but it seems to me that there is a degree of flexibility in the way in which we decide to adhere to those rules. That is one of the things that we are teasing out in this debate. It is possible to alter that so as to ultimately make it clear that, were a conflict to arise, it would be a decision of this Parliament whether we wanted to break the rules, rather than a decision at another stage by the domestic courts. To that extent, there is a considerable amount of flexibility even in the European treaty, which I have recently been re-reading. We have to honour our treaty obligations under the 1972 Act, but how we go about that is left very much to our own domestic circumstances to decide.

David Howarth: I suppose that one response to the hon. and learned Gentleman is that we can attempt to breach our treaty obligations, but whether we succeed in doing so will be up to the courts. We can certainly withdraw from the treatythe Lisbon treaty explicitly allows for thatbut I am in no doubt that we were able to do that all along.
	Another problem occurs to me in relation to the new clause on supremacy. The idea of supremacy is not really a rule within our constitutional order, but a presupposition of our constitutional order. Let me illustrate that. What if the judges were to do something which very occasionally some of them have suggested that they might dochange the order of priority between the supremacy of Parliament and the rule of law? All along, since the establishment of the supremacy of Parliament, judges have ultimately given way to what this Parliament says, even when that violates their ideas of the rule of law. But what if they were to reverse that? Could we, as a Parliament, re-establish the supremacy of Parliament by an Act of Parliament? The answer is obviously no. If we tried do that once the judges had come to a different presupposition, they would simply say that that presupposition was no longer the law. It is a question of the status of the supremacy of Parliament, which is, if anything, a rule of the common law. We ourselves, by passing amendments to Bills, cannot do anything about it. We cannot give it away either. We cannot give away our supremacy, and we cannot regain it if we lose it.

Richard Shepherd: We are touching on deep thoughts within our constitutional understanding of these matters. The question that surely arises is: who creates the judges, and by what authority are they judges? The hon. Gentleman will recall that on taking the Crown of England, William culled the judges and made sure that he had those who would pursue the interests he judged to be right. This House ultimately has the power to remove the judges, so therefore, sovereignty surely lies here.

David Howarth: The hon. Gentleman describes what is possibly the ultimate constitutional nightmare. It is a nightmare that is occurring right now in Pakistan, and it is not entirely clear to me that the Government and Parliament are on the right side in that particular debate.

Dominic Grieve: Gently teasing the debate back in the direction of the amendments, the only instances in which it has been suggested that a circumstance might arise in which United Kingdom courts, particularly the House of Lords, might effectively strike down legislation or order its disregard, are those where the legislation fundamentally undermines human rights or basic common law and constitutional principles. That has nothing whatsoever to do with our relationship with the European Union.

David Howarth: The hon. and learned Gentleman is probably right about that. The circumstances in which that would arise would be the use of ouster clausesexcluding the jurisdiction of the courts and keeping judges out of things. That situation could in theory arise in the circumstances that we are discussing. I have raised those points merely to illustrate the problem of using the word supremacy in a change made to a Bill. It is not a word that can be used with any precision.
	New clause 5 seems an entirely sensible suggestion. The Government should come to the House to explain in what way proposals are in line with principles of subsidiarity, and so on. I might quibble with the word evidence in the new clause. It is not a matter of fact or evidence, but of argument and reasoning. The drafting is not perfect, but the proposal seems entirely right.
	The debate on these topics is worth having, but apart from new clause 5, I am not certain that the new clauses would add anything useful. In some cases, were they to be passed, they might be quite difficult to interpret. Nevertheless, I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Patricia Hewitt: It is a great pleasure to follow the very thoughtful and interesting contribution of the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth), who took us off into a wonderful constitutional theory seminar worthy of Cambridge university. It was absolutely fascinating.
	The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has repeatedly asked me to say why I do not support amendment No. 13, and I have similar reasons to those advanced by the hon. Member for Cambridge. It is a red herring and it is not necessary. I do not always object to redundant clauses in a Bill where they are genuinely included for the avoidance of doubt, but on this occasion, the hon. and learned Gentleman's amendment raisesno doubt, quite deliberatelya question about whether the institutions of the European Union, notably the Commission, are trying improperly to place duties on this Parliament. I simply do not accept that articles 8C and 61B do that.

Dominic Grieve: The right hon. Lady needs to address the history of the text, which I touched on, and the curious discrepancies between the English and the French versions, which are striking, particularly because they seem to give rise to very different interpretations of the same words. I urge her to consider what is wrong with amendment No. 13. She says that it is a red herring, but is it a damaging red herring given what she and the Government wish to achieve? I do not think so. In those circumstances, given the ambiguity, I would have thought that she would be racing to support the amendment, so as to provide reassurance to those hon. Members who are anxious about the matter.

Patricia Hewitt: I regret to say that I will not be racing to support the amendment, although perhaps we should wait and see what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say on the subject.
	I am not sure about racing to support new clause 5, but the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) might be surprised to learn that I find myself in great sympathy with it. Given the interesting debate that we had yesterday about how Parliament could strengthen its scrutiny proposals by fulfilling the important function of looking at proposals for legislation that come from the European Commission and making a judgment as to whether they are compatible with the principle of subsidiarity, it would be useful for the appropriate Secretary of State to give his or her view to Parliamentnot to insistto help it form its view on whether the Commission was in fact respecting subsidiarity in coming forward with particular proposals.
	There is a parallel between what the right hon. Gentleman seeks to achieve in new clause 5 and what the Human Rights Act 1998 does. When a Secretary of State brings forward a Bill to the House, he or she has to certify that it is compatible with the provisions of the Human Rights Act. As I know from my experience as a Minister, that is an important responsibility and it requires Ministers to take advice, satisfy themselves personally that a Bill is indeed in compliance with the Human Rights Act, and if it is not, to make the necessary changes before it comes before Parliament or explain to Parliament why the Government seek to legislate despite the Human Rights Act. Although the parallel is not exact, new clause 5 would be helpful. My hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House, who recently made proposals on how we could strengthen the House's scrutiny provisions, might want to consider what the right hon. Gentleman seeks to achieve in new clause 5 and take it on board as part of the package of proposals that she recently announced. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister could comment on new clause 5 and my suggestion in particular.
	Finally and briefly, I do not pretend to follow all the sophisticated arguments with which the hon. Member for Cambridge explained his opposition to new clause 9. My opposition to it is rather simple. What the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) seems to be doingI assume this to be the purpose of new clause 9is trying to reverse the supremacy of European law on matters that fall within the European legal order by reasserting, on all matters, the supremacy of Parliament. As I argued yesterday, the European Union is precisely an institution within which we, the member states, pool sovereignty on certain issues because we believe that to be the best way of achieving our common objectives. To that extent, the sovereignty of Parliament is indeed somewhat reduced, because we have accepted the supremacy of European law, which we, through the Government and the Council of Ministers, have a large part in shaping. In that respect, we have accepted that European law is supreme.

Richard Shepherd: We are talking about something that is central to our constitutional history and our constitution, yet we are going to dispose of the matter in two and a half hours. This theme has run through all our debates. The supremacy of Parliament cannot be lightly flipped away on a presumption of how or what, or on the basis that we have decided on a new constitutional order, because the British people have never been invited to discuss such an order. The supremacy of Parliament has been the lifeline by which our Parliament has arrived at a democratic national society that reflects the will of the British people. That is what concerns me when I hear people saying that we have entered a new order and temporarily surrenderedor however one wants to put ita concept that is so basic to our liberty.

Patricia Hewitt: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, as I think he knows, but the supremacy of European Union law on matters that are properly within the scope of EU law has been a feature of the European Community since before we joined it. It goes back for decades: it was not created or invented by the Lisbon treaty and it is not something that we are tossing away in 10 minutes or a few hours of debate.
	My objection to new clause 9 is quite simply that it seeks to reverse a central principle of the EU and our membership of it. Of course, that is precisely the view of the hon. Member for Stone, who does not believe that we should be a member of the EU, but I disagree. The British people voted to join the Common Market and now, through a series of treaty amendmentswe should recall that the Conservative Government were responsible for the most important onesit has become the European Union, which is not an issue that we should be trying to reverse.
	With those remarks, I hope that I have explained why I will not support this group of amendments, but I hope that the Government will seek to carry forward the intent behind new clause 5.

David Heathcoat-Amory: I rise as a non-lawyer to trespass on a series of legal minefields. I recall the line in one of Shakespeare's history plays when at the start of a riot, Dick the Butcher says:
	The first thing we do, we kill all the lawyers,
	not a course of action that I would recommend, if only on account of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) in his place behind me and the kind welcome given to my new clause 5 by the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and, indeed, the right hon. Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt), who has just concluded. It seems that my modest proposal has gained a degree of cross-party alliance, which I hope will commend it to the Minister when he replies.
	Before I speak to my new clause, let me touch on amendment No. 13, which I strongly support. It is wrong for this Parliament to be placed under any sort of legal obligation by a treaty, so the wording is very important. The word shall persists in the article on the role of national Parliaments, so we shall be required to co-operate with the European Parliament and other Parliaments and one can envisage a situation in future when we may wish not to co-operate. It is risky for the legal obligation to apply, particularly when disputes are decided by the European Court of Justicean activist, interventionist and centralising Court that takes it cue from the existing requirement for ever closer union. Indeed, I have already drawn attention in an earlier intervention to a new requirement in the treaty whereby the Court as an EU institution will have to practise mutual sincere cooperation, not with member states or national Parliaments but with the other institutions of the EU, including the European Parliament. That seems very dangerous.
	The wording in article 8C has been modified, and the word shall has been taken outalthough not in the French version, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield noted. That simply creates confusion and ambiguity. It is worth reading out the sentence from the European Scrutiny Committee report on that:
	Given its constitutional significance, we must emphasise that this is not an area in which any ambiguity is tolerable and we shall look to the Government to ensure that its original undertakings are met in any new text.
	It is interesting that the Committee described the matter as of constitutional significance, because it undermines the Government's attitude that the treaty has been downgraded from a constitution to simply an amending treaty. Ambiguity is not tolerable. Whether it is from feebleness of negotiation or from a deliberate belief that national Parliaments should be part of a European legal order, the Government failed in that respect.
	It seems to meagain, as a non-lawyerthat the phrase in article 8C cannot simply be descriptive and refer to a state of affairs whereby national Parliaments contribute to the functioning of the European Union. This is a legal text. It is designed to create obligations and responsibilities. It is not a text from an observer status. It is designed to do somethingto change thingsand it is almost certain that the drafters regarded it as conferring a new obligation. That is what the Court, in my view, will follow. It is right that the Government return to the matter and at least give an account of why they did not discharge their original undertaking to the European Scrutiny Committee to remove the ambiguity completely by inserting the word may rather than shall.
	New clause 5 would reinstate a requirement that was in the original European Union Bill to make the Government justify all new EU proposals on grounds of subsidiarity. It would add conferral and proportionality to those grounds. However, it is a reinstatement, because that Bill, which received a Second Reading in 2005 and was withdrawn only when the French and Dutch referendums destroyed the constitutional treaty, contained a similar clause. Is it not appropriate to reinstate that proposal? That is the force of my new clause.
	I should say at once that I have no real faith in the subsidiarity principle. The European Scrutiny Committee, of which I am a member, sees many proposals that are pretty clear breaches of subsidiarity, which is the principle whereby the European Union legislates only when the action in question has to be taken, or can only be taken properly, at EU level and cannot be done adequately at national level. Almost at random from my file, I pulled out proposals that came to the Committee. One, of a year or two ago, proposed action at EU level on violence at work. That is obviously a serious problem and we all want to deal with it, but it was not clear why the EU should legislate on that when it was clearly a breach of the subsidiarity principle. We corresponded at some length on that. What is interesting is that the Commissioner at the time, Commissioner Dimas, justified EU action on the grounds of
	awareness raising, information, exchange of good practice and practical guidance.
	If those are the reasons to justify EU action, there is no policy area in which such action could not be justified as there is always scope for the exchange of good practice.
	Another legislative proposal to come before the ESC was for a programme to counter violence against children. Again, the Committee wondered what added value was supplied by adopting an EU-level approach, and we asked whether the proposal breached the subsidiarity principle. The answer was that the proposed action was intended to identify and disseminate best practice.
	A more recent example was rather topical, in that it was about the assessment and management of floods. The Committee wanted to know how river flooding in England was a matter for the EU. We asked what would be added by EU action but, again, it was never explained. The ESC suggested that some EU action could be appropriate when a river crossed the boundary between member states, and we noted that there was such a river in Northern Ireland. However, that was not good enough for the EU, which was intending to tackle all river flooding, and the assessments thereof, by means of EU action that satisfied the subsidiarity principle.
	It is not difficult to see from those few examples that the principle of subsidiarity is almost meaningless. The detailed protocol on subsidiarity has been a feature of EU law for more than 10 years but, given the widespread breaches, I do not have much faith in the ability of the EU or the ECJ to police the system.
	The treaty contains one innovation. Its proposed yellow card system would allow national Parliaments collectively to object to a proposal for legislation on the grounds of subsidiarity. That proposal was advanced in the Convention on the Future of Europe as an extension of the rights of national Parliaments, but it was nothing of the kind. National Parliamentsand the ESC as wellalready lodge objections on the grounds of subsidiarity. We never make any progress: for example, the EU was required only to review the yellow card proposal, but not to withdraw it.
	The British Government wanted a much stronger, red card system whereby a proposal would have had to be withdrawn if national Parliaments objected to a proposal on the grounds of subsidiarity. The system that we proposed failed, of course.
	If I may, Sir Alan, I should like to suggest the adoption of a new convention in our debates. When we objected to something in the Convention on the Future of Europe, the Government almost always ended up objecting to it too. The same thing continues to happenalthough the difference is that we can maintain our objections, whereas the Government must pretend that they never had any. Well, we were all on the same side in the Convention on the Future of Europe: we failed, but the objection remains valid that the treaty contains no real, new powers for national Parliaments.
	We now have what is called the orange card system. The colour has been changed, but the proposal could almost be called a green card, or a green light, for all the difference it would make. Under the new system, if a majority of national Parliaments object to a legislative proposal on subsidiarity grounds, and if they are joined by a majority in the European Parliament, the proposal has to be reviewed and could be withdrawn.
	However, if so many people and national Parliaments object to a proposal, it will be withdrawn anyway, on other grounds. No proposal could succeed if it was opposed by a majority of member states and European parliamentarians. The subsidiarity principle is therefore largely meaningless, and it is certainly not much of a safeguard. Any case is to be decided by the ECJ, but no one can recall an occasion when the Court decided against a proposal on subsidiarity grounds. The question that needs answering is whether national Parliaments can object on the grounds of subsidiarity to the European Court of Justice, which is the supreme arbiter in the matter. Again, there is an ambiguity. The Committee that deals with European matters in another place raised it with the Government and received no clear answer. We do not know whether Parliamentor the Governmentcan make an objection on the grounds of subsidiarity.
	There are no additional powers for national Parliaments. Meanwhile, powers are haemorrhaging from Parliament upwards to the European Union in almost every aspect of policy. New clause 5 would require the Government to justify EU proposals not only on subsidiarity and proportionality grounds but on that of conferral. Conferral is the principle whereby the EU enacts only measures that national Governments and member states grant it the power to enact. The problem is that the division of powers between member states and the European Union in the treaty has been determined decisively in favour of the European Union. The principle of conferral, which provides that all powers remain with national Governments unless they have been conferred, has been overtaken by provisions that deal with exclusive and shared competences.
	The origins of those provisions go back to discussions on the Convention on the Future of Europe, where they were immediately perceived to be key matters. After all, constitutions divide powersbetween states and the federal Government in the case of the United States, and between member states and EU institutions in the case of Europe. Those provisions have been included wholesale in the treaty of Lisbon and it is therefore a constitutional measure, whatever the Government say.
	When considering the Convention on the Future of Europe in 2002, a working group was set up to look into the matter. It produced a report, which was highly sympathetic to the position of member states, possibly taking its cue from the suggestion in the Laeken declaration that some powers should revert to member states. The working group examined and was critical of article 308, which is the flexibility clausesometimes called the rubber article. It grants the power by unanimity in the Council of Ministers to create new powers that the treaty does not contain. That is highly controversial and means that the treaties, including the treaty of Lisbon, will not be limiting because article 308 endures in a slightly amended form in the new treaty. Any temporary Council of Ministers could agree to move into new territories and acquire new powers not seen by those drafting the treaty.
	The working group was critical, and that created consternation in the upper reaches of the conventionamong the presidency and the secretariat, who ensured that none of the proposals appeared in the final document. Instead, the definition of shared competences endured. That definition is curious. Shared competence allows member states to legislate in many matters only if the European Union has not done so. To put it the other way around, as soon as the European Union legislates in any policy areas, member states lose their ability to legislate or decide. That is an odd definition of sharing. If I were to share a meal with someone on that basis, they could eat the lot and give me nothing yet claim that they had shared the meal. In truth, national Parliaments are given only a residual power to legislate.
	Nor is the list definitive or exhaustive. It specifies 11 policy areas, some of whichsuch as freedom, security and justiceare very general, but it also states:
	Shared competence... applies in the following principal areas.
	That is the worst of all worlds. The article gives the European Union substantial new powers without limiting them in any way. My new clause applies here as well. It was not just me who objected to the wording; the Government objected to it, and we both lost. It is in the treaty. I can maintain my objection, but the Government must now defend what they regarded then as indefensible.
	Then there are the areas of exclusive competence, in which member states cannot legislate at all and the principle of subsidiarity therefore does not apply. We discussed fisheries yesterday, so I will not repeat those arguments, but competition policy has also been asserted as an area of exclusive competence, and my new clause applies to that too. The Government did not like the proposal. but it was approved. They lost, and now they must pretend that they do not mind it after all.
	International agreement is a significant new power for the European Union. When the negotiation and signing of international agreements becomes a matter of exclusive competence across policy areas such as the environment, transport, energy and crime, this country will not be ableand therefore this Parliament will be forbiddento conclude or negotiate such agreements with third parties or international organisations. That is an enormous extension of the powers of the European Union.
	The exclusive competence and shared competence clauses have huge implications for the powers of the House, and also for the supremacy of EU law. Other new clauses in the group deal with the supremacy and I will allow my hon. Friend the Member for Stone to make the case for them later, but let me say now that supremacy is asserted not just in declaration 17, which takes the case law of the European Court of Justice and inserts it in a treaty, but through the shared and exclusive competences.
	I was puzzled when the hon. Member for Cambridge said that we were supreme in our own legal order but not in the European order. How can we be supreme in our own legal order when the national Parliament will be entirely and completely forbidden to legislate in areas of exclusive competence, and will be forbidden to conclude international agreements with third parties?

David Howarth: The obvious answer is that we are supreme because we can free ourselves from all those obligations simply by repealing the 1972 Act.

David Heathcoat-Amory: I am glad the hon. Gentleman concedes that that can be done. In his speech he outlined a different scenario, in which some judges would send that decision to the European Court of Justice.

David Howarth: Let me clarify what I said. I was responding to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who described circumstances in which we had passed legislation that was incompatible with our obligations but had not withdrawn. It is possible that, in such circumstances, the judge might follow our law or the European legal order, but that does not preclude withdrawal as the solution to the whole problem. That is our prerogative, and it is the way in which our supremacy remains.

David Heathcoat-Amory: I think it follows from what the hon. Gentleman has said that if we pass the Bill and ratify the treatywhich hands over legislative supremacy to the European Union in the areas that I listedwe can reverse that only by withdrawing completely from the European Union. I want to take the slightly less drastic step of amending the Bill and the treaty to establish the supremacy of this Parliament. My new clause would require the Government regularly to explain how powers have been transferred from this Parliament thus, in my view, undermining self-governance. They would have to do that every time the EU advanced a proposal for legislation or decision making. That would also never allow the Government to forget that these powers have been transferred without the consent of the public, if they deny them a referendum.

William Cash: I wish to begin by drawing an historical comparison with an analogous time when people decided what laws they wanted their Parliament to exercise: the Putney debates, compared with which our debates are pretty tame. Much concern was expressed in the great Putney debates about who governs us and how; matters were dealt with in a manner that befitted their importance.
	We have had an interesting debate, and I congratulate Labour Members on their contributions to it. We are discussing hugely significant questions. I want to concentrate on new clauses 8 and 9, which I tabled. I endorse the arguments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) on amendment No. 13 and the customarily perspicacious remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) on new clause 5. I also pay tribute to the contribution of the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), who has extensive knowledge from his extremely good chairmanship of the European Scrutiny Committee. I have not mentioned everybody, but I should add that I enjoyed the perambulations around the question of supremacy of the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth), although I do not agree with him on thatbut, not unnaturally, I do agree with him on the Bill of Rights question.
	This is not just a legal debate; it is a debate about the political will of the nation as expressed through the representatives in this House on behalf of the voters of this country. That is the measure of the importance of the debate. It is also about the question of whether we are able to demonstrate and reassert in the context of this Bill the principle of the supremacy of Parliament. That is not an abstraction; it is about essentially practical matters, as I shall explain. Against that background, let me also say that, with the leave of the Chair, I shall press new clauses 8 and 9 to a Division; I want to put that on the record, as I understand that that is a necessary formality.
	I wish first to refer to some comments of Edmund Burke, the great Conservative philosopher-in-action and politician and in many respects the founder of the Conservative party, in his famous essay, Reflections on the Revolution in France of 1789. William Pitt, whose biography our shadow Foreign Secretary has recently written, was then Prime Minister. Edmund Burke's wordswhich I paraphrase slightlyare worth bearing in mind. He said that they
	will pull down more in half an hour than prudence, deliberation and foresight can build up in a hundred years.
	He went on to say that
	the best legislators have often been satisfied with the establishment of some sure, solid and ruling principle in government...and, having fixed the principle, they have left it afterwards to its own operation...By their
	the politicians'
	violent haste and their defiance of the process of nature, they are delivered over blindly to every projector and adventurer, to every alchemist and empiric.
	What he meant by that was that it was possible, in a very short time, to pull down a whole constitution. I believe that, for practical purposes, that is what we have been doing with this Billnot only in the manner in which our discussions have been truncated but in the impact that it will have on the constitution of this country.

Adam Afriyie: My hon. Friend is making a clear and eloquent case. He has cited Edmund Burke, and it seems to me that, if, under the treaty, we wished to negotiate a policy that had been proposed by the European Commission, the only way to state our negotiating position with any strength would, in many cases, be to threaten to use the European Communities Act 1972. The treaty might well lead to the break-up of the European Union, rather than to the furtherance of the Union that is desired.

William Cash: Indeed. I made that very point yesterday in the debate on competences. This attempt to press everyone into this compression chamber will produce tensions and diversity, particularly if the economies of Europe do not work according to the plan laid down by the bureaucrats.
	To carry forward the historical connection with William Pitt, I recall that, in his famous Guildhall speech, he said:
	England has saved herself by her exertions, and will, as I trust, save Europe by her example.
	I believe that that is extremely relevant to this debate, however relatively sparsely attended it might becertainly on the Labour and Liberal Democrat Benches. We are talking about our own Government, and we have to remember that the Bill will implement in United Kingdom law all the existing treaties, with the accumulated functions and proposed amendments, which, as the European Scrutiny Committee has clearly stated, are substantially equivalent to the original constitutional treaty.
	I am not going to go right the way down that route, however, as I believe that that case has been thoroughly examined, but I want to repudiate what the Prime Minister said, yet again, at Prime Minister's questions today about the abandonment of the constitutional concept. So many statements have been made by other leaders in Europe to contradict him that I do not need to repeat them all now. They are on the record.
	I sometimes make the pointand I am open to correction on it, by myself, among othersthat, when we say that we are implementing a treaty in UK law, that is actually not quite correct, legally and constitutionally speaking. It is the manner and form in which we translate the treaty into an Act of Parliament, but subject to the 1972 Act through the operation of sections 2 and 3. For practical purposes, by using our Acts of Parliament as a vehicle, we are, in a circular way, putting into European law the provisions of the treaty that have been agreed by prerogative.
	It so happens that the provision is made through a UK enactment and is justiciable by the UK courts.  [ Interruption. ] If the hon. Member for Cambridge wishes to intervene, I am happy to let him do so. Such a provision is justiciable in the UK courts and is therefore an Act of the UK. I have no doubt about that. Because we have voluntarily surrendered through sections 2 and 3 of the 1972 Act, in the terms of Lord Bridge and the Factortame case, we have effectively imposed voluntarily on ourselves the European legal order as an incubus within the Act of Parliament.
	The problem is therefore very simple. We are creating a kind of faade, of which we need to be very aware. There are those who will argue that we cannot hereafter amend any of those enactments, for the reason that I have given. I disagree profoundly. That lies at the heart of what I am about to say. I also believe, particularly with reference to new clauses 8 and 9, which are supported by more than 40 MPs, that the question is raised of the significance and value of Parliament to the voters and the country.
	Let me get away for a moment from the purely legal arguments, because this is essentially about political will, although it has to be addressed in a proper constitutional and legal framework. This is not our Parliament. This Parliament does not belong to the Members of this House but to the people outside. It is their Parliament and its powers are draining away. The reasons were given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells just now, and I put forward the arguments on the questions of competences yesterday. Those exclusive and shared competences are accumulating and have accumulated to such a critical mass that it is almost impossible to find any area of law that is not within either of those competences. We are not allowed to legislate within them.
	We are neutering ourselves by putting through this treaty and by the accumulation of the other treaties. Furthermore, the Minister for Europe had an exchange with me yesterday about my analogy with the corn laws, the Reform Acts and women's votes. He said that it was ludicrous to suggest that the Bill should be subject to any comparison with those cases. I do not agree. The impact of what was done in the Reform Acts, for example, in granting greater democracy, is being undermined by the undemocratic institutional arrangements to which we are hostage in this process. We are also unwinding and taking away from ourselves a democracy that was fought for and won in those Reform Acts and, in particular, in the great battle for the Reform Act 1867.
	It is quite incredible to my mind that there is so little public concern. I suspect that one reason for that is the fact that the arguments have not been properly presented and addressed in the public arena. I have made the point that I do not believe that the television and broadcast media have gone anything like far enough in explaining what is really going on; neither have any other media. The referendum issue has foundered because of the lack of a full explanation in the right forum. We can talk to ourselves in the Westminster village and in the Chamber, but, in the modern age, people who are not heard outside are not heard at all. During the passage of the Bill that became the Reform Act 1867, John Bright and others addressed meetings of 200,000 people in Birmingham and Glasgow because those people had no other means of hearing.
	There is a lack of knowledge, not understanding. People's instinctive understanding is that they do not want the treaty and do want a referendum. That is the view of well over 50 per cent. of peoplethe figure is well into the 60s. However, it is no wonder that so few people attend these debates and that so few people bother to vote in elections. People know instinctively that their powers, which they exercise through voting, have been diminished and taken from them. Members know that when they legislate as a consequence of, or to implement, European Union regulations and decisions, they cannot change them, so why should they take an interest? The Government know perfectly well that many Bills cannot be amended, even though amendments are tabled, because of the requirements incumbent on us under sections 2 and 3 of the 1972 Act. That is why I have tabled new clause 9 on the supremacy of Parliament.

Rob Marris: I stoutly refuse to accept the hon. Gentleman's intellectual construct that power is a zero sum gameit is not.

William Cash: The hon. Gentleman can say what he likes. I am setting out the argument as I want to present it. If people were more conscious of the effect of European legislation, they would be more likely to take part in such debates and in elections.
	We need to ask whether all this matters. I believe that it matters profoundly. Let me quote Burke once more. In his famous speech on constitutional reform in 1782, he said:
	Our constitution stands on a nice equipoise with steep precipices and deep waters upon all sides of it.
	That is where we are in relation to the Bill.
	We should not forget that our Parliament has been the bastion of freedom for hundreds of years in Europe, and was the foundation of our successful resistance of tyranny in two world wars that saved Europe from itself. What an irony that the mother of Parliaments now faces a reverse takeover from its siblings. We face not a theological abstractionnot just some vague concept of sovereigntybut practical questions to which people want answers. However, the people simply do not yet know how far all this has gone in relation to the competences, the exclusivity, the sharing of those competences, and the power that has drained away from this place due to the fields in which we cannot legislate. The Minister has admitted by implication that very little is left, and the European Court of Justice rules supreme.

Michael Connarty: I have had the pleasure of reading the shadow Foreign Secretary's biography of William Pitt. I studied British history up to A-level and I continue to read about it. However, I did not study it at university because I liked it so much that I did not want to be put off by someone chopping it into little pieces and feeding it to me in lectures.
	I understand that the debate between Burke and Pitt related to the defence of the Bill of Rights on the basis that it gave power to the King. Burke and Pitt divided on the challenge to the King's authority. Surely the hon. Gentleman accepts that the conclusions of the process improved this country's constitutional arrangements. Even he must accept that as the European Union has advanced since its inception and the first treaty of Rome, we have been able to do things across Europe that we never thought would be possible, such as breaking down the iron curtain and bringing people into a democratic settlement and a much more prosperous way of life. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) that politics is not a zero sum game. It is something to which great value can be added through flexibility and development.

William Cash: The answer to the hon. Gentleman is simply this: the kind of Europe that he describes is not the kind of Europe that I witness. Although I have, for example, been in favour of enlargementI never said otherwisemy problem, having voted yes in 1975 and, although I have now repented, having also voted for the Single European Act, is with the European Union as it is constructed. I do not have a problem with the kind of Europe that Winston Churchill advocated in his famous speech in Zurich in 1946, saying that we should be associated but not absorbed. I believe in an association of nation states working within a loose co-operation that enables us to form alliances, but not within a centralising, European Court of Justice-dominated, supranational arrangement.
	In his diaries, de Gaulle wrote about his exchanges with Adenauer. He wrote that they agreed that they did not want their countries to be merged into a stateless institution. However, that is precisely what happened, and that is part of the problem. When de Gaulle came to this Parliament, he made a remarkable speech in which he confirmed what, to him, this country represented. He said, on 7 April 1960,
	This outstanding role in the midst of the storm
	the 1940-45 storms
	is owed not only to your profound national qualities but also to the value of your institutions...With self-assurance, almost without being aware of it, you operate in freedom a secure, stable political system.
	I think he was right. He understood what the problems were, which is why he took such a difficult position in the EEC. However, the history of de Gaulle, Adenauer and the rest is for another occasion.

Bernard Jenkin: I merely add that the great man's last utterance on the subject was contained in a letter to the chairman of the constituency association where my father was the parliamentary candidate. From his hospital bed, Winston had inveighed against joining the European Economic Community, but he had subsequently been persuaded to write a letter to satisfy the Whips and others who were pressing him on the subject. In his letter, he said that the only reason to apply was to find out what the terms of membership might be, not necessarily to accept those terms.

William Cash: That is very interesting. It is as well in a debate of such importance to put such matters on the record, albeit we must not stray too far from the amendment.
	I believe that we have to negotiate; that is part of the essence of the process. However, I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to recall our position on, for example, the repatriation of economic competitiveness and the social chapter, and our statements on the common agricultural and fisheries policies, the working time directive and so on, not to mention the problems that arose in the Northern Rock case from the market abuse directive. The plain fact is that if we are to deal with the questions before us and work out how to reassert our ability to legislate, we must have a sound constitutional basis on which to do so, and that is what new clause 9 offers.
	With respect to new clause 8 and the Bill of Rights, I have said that Speaker Boothroyd invoked the Bill of Rights in relation to the potential ratification of the Maastricht treaty, and the courts agreed that it was not possiblebecause they backed downto go into the question of ratification. They left the matter entirely to the question of legality. There is also the problem of the charter of fundamental rights and the implications of the European Court of Justice in respect of a vast area of activity that the Government themselves do not want to be brought into effect.
	The bottom line is that we must use the powers contained in the judgments made in case law in McCarthys Ltd  v. Smith and Garland  v. British Rail Engineering and by Mr. Justice Laws, which clearly and unequivocally state that we in the House have the right to pass legislation inconsistent with that of the European Union if we do so in the correct manner. As Lord Denning said,
	If the time should come when our Parliament deliberately passes an Act with the intention of repudiating the treaty or any provision in it or intentionally of acting inconsistently with it and says so in express terms then I should have thought that it would be the duty of our courts to follow the statute of our Parliament.
	That is the basis on which I rest my case with respect to the supremacy of Parliament and new clause 9. I believe that we should adopt the new clause, because it is absolutely fundamental to the future self-government of this country and to our ability to reform, review and, where necessary, amend provisions that otherwise will be imposed on us through the Court of Justice, creating a situation in which we can no longer govern ourselves.

Richard Shepherd: I would like to have heard the Minister's reply earlier to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) when he moved the amendment, as it would have added to the vitality of this debate.
	When asked what history was, Santander said, First you have to invent it. In a sense, the House reinvents its perception of history again and again. I stand here after 29 years, having been present at all the debates on the development, as we put it, of what we now call the European Union, with the exception of the debate on the originating Act. I came to the House with certain assumptions and with the assumptions of my electorate. That is why the amendments are of critical importance: it must be ascertained where they stand. I am here only by their writ and only as a manifestation of their sovereignty. That is why the concept of the sovereignty of Parliament is not just a nightmare. It is part of the development of our constitution, and therefore the definition of what we understand by liberty. That is why this is not a debate to be disposed of in seven minutes, an hour and a half or two and a half hours in this phoney Committee construct. It is something that touches the rights of the people of this country to determine the laws under which they live.

Michael Connarty: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Richard Shepherd: No; I simply do not have the time. The hon. Gentleman should take it up with his party's Whip. It is the mandate for which the hon. Gentleman voted that constricted the debates to an hour and a half to two and a half hours. That is an outrage, as he well knows. Our difficulty is in reconciling great principles to a new constitutional order. I certainly did not understand that when I first came to the House in 1979. On Second Readingthat, too, was a debate in which many of us could not contributethe right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) said that we had had many assurances, but that it did not mean very much.
	In fact, the Bill is only a little step; we have had pillar arrangements, and we were even given assurances, which I know were given in good faith, about the Single European Act. When people such as me expressed fears about what the measures meant for the people whom I am sent to represent, we were always given the reassurance, No, no. That's a nightmare scenario; it's a fanciful interpretation, but when I look at the Bill, I see that we are a long way off from where we were in 1972 and subsequent years.  [Interruption.] I hear mumbling; we are stimulating a debate at last. We are now hearing the devotion to a new constitutional order, without ever having invited the British people directly to express what their understanding is, and without asking them whether the measures are appropriate.
	The House drifts along as we are hollowed out. That is what is happening under the aegis of the Bill. The House is now a hollow, echoing Chamber. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield raised a question under amendment No. 13. It seemed reasonable and rational, and met the observations of everyone in the Chamber. If the Government's understanding and my hon. and learned Friend's understanding are the same, could we not accept the amendment?
	I next come to an issue on which there must be a difference between people such as me and the Government: the sovereignty of Parliament and the very reason why we stand here in the Chamber. Who makes the laws and who judges on them? Our constitutional integrity requires that ultimately we be the judge on the laws that affect our people, who sent us here. I understood that that is who is judge, under the constitution and the history of liberty in this country. Protection of the sovereignty provisions is protection of the things that are central to the existence of this place. I therefore agree with, and will vote for, all the amendments that are pressed to a Division that try to protect the integrity of those who sent me here to represent them.

Jim Murphy: I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond to this evening's debate at the end of six hours of deliberation. The fact that the debate was six hours long reflects the wish, set out in today's amendment to the programme order, of both Labour and Conservative Front Benchers. I share the frustration felt about the fact that we will not debate the other groups of amendments, particularly those on the EU competence for animal welfare in outer space, and that we will not have the quasi-theological debate on the European definitions of sentient beings. Perhaps we can return to those issues another time.

Martin Horwood: I am interested to hear the Minister make light of the issue. I share the frustration felt by many Members present about the fact that we have not had the opportunity to discuss important amendments covering issues such as animal welfare and space, public health and the environment. Does he agree that the impact of the amendmentsif we imagine that the treaty would be left intact if they were passedwould be not simply to preserve the status quo ante, but to frustrate, truncate and possibly even reverse the progress of European policy in some important areas?

Jim Murphy: I know that the hon. Gentleman came along to participate in debate on amendment No. 151, but he has had the great opportunity of listening to the very informative assessment made by the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) of the relationship between domestic law, the sovereignty of Parliament and the European Union. Those are important issues, and we will continue to discuss them in the Chamber.
	Let me turn to the specifics of the amendments before us. New clause 5, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), is about a proposal relating to draft EU legislation. The Government already provide the European Scrutiny Committee with an explanatory memorandum that specifically addresses whether the Government consider a proposal to have met the principle of subsidiarity.
	The Government are committed to effective and improved scrutiny, but I accept the tone in which the right hon. Gentleman moved new clause 5 and the encouragement from my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt), and I will bring to the attention of the Leader of the House the points that the right hon. Gentleman fairly made about the way in which we could improve the scrutiny of proposals from the Commission and elsewhere, and see whether that can be incorporated in the wide-ranging review being undertaken by the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House. It is important that we do that.
	Amendment No. 13 is unnecessary. It is the established view of Governments of both parties that it is a bad principle to have redundant provisions in legislation. I shall set out why that is the case. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) alluded yesterday to the fact that in EU treaties shall does not always impose an obligation to take action. It can also set out powers. The meaning depends on the context. In this case the relevant provisions confer rights and powers on national Parliaments. The language used is therefore simply descriptive.
	The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) referred to the French text. My Dutch is better than my French, and that text as well is descriptive when it states De nationale parlementen dragen. That is clear. It is descriptive text. That is the wording that has been accepted across the entire European Union. Other language versions, such as German, use the present tense where the English text would use shall. The English language version is clearly and intentionally non-binding.
	Shall is retained in the protocol, which states that the European Parliament and national Parliaments shall draw up arrangements for co-operation. That is not a commitment to co-operate. If it is in any way an obligation, it is an obligation to act jointly in drawing up arrangements. National Parliaments are not required to participate in such arrangements. If the hon. and learned Gentleman seeks to intervene, I am happy to give way, although he will have a couple of minutes towards the end.
	The EU legal experts group includes representatives from all member states and all European institutions and reflects the views of others, including the Dutch Government and the French Government, who have confirmed separately that no obligation is intended. In a debate on ratification

Peter Bone: Is the Minister contending that the translation is incorrect and that a different word should be used?

Jim Murphy: I am contending that no obligation is intended. As I said, the legal experts group has come to that conclusion. Also, in the summing up at the General Affairs Council towards the end of last year, the presidency made it clear, and it was agreed by all member states, that there was no compulsion.
	In a letter to the Foreign Secretary on 16 October the Minister of State and Foreign Affairs of Portugal, which fulfilled the role of presidency, stated that
	the Legal Experts reached the conclusion, by consensus, that this article imposes no obligation on the national Parliaments and it is purely declaratory in nature.
	The House of Lords European Union Committee commented on the revised text in its report of 1 November 2007, which stated:
	While we accepted these reassurances
	that the treaty was not intended to impose obligations on national Parliaments 
	we considered it necessary to ensure that the phraseology was correct while the interests of national parliaments were appropriately presented in the text. . . We were accordingly pleased to have heard that the word 'shall' has been eliminated from the English text.

Dominic Grieve: There appears to be a contradiction in the Minister's position. Earlier, he told us that the context meant that shall could not under any circumstances be mandatory, yet a moment later he told us that the House of Lords Committee was reassured by the removal of that word. There is a certain lack of clarity on where the Government stand.

Jim Murphy: That is not the case at all. The European Scrutiny Committee, ably led by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), raised a specific concern and I undertook to address it. I sent myself to the Netherlands and France to negotiate with the Dutch and French Europe Ministers and got the agreement that was reflected in the outcome of the General Affairs Council, at which it was agreed unanimously that that would be the case. The House of Lords Committee then responded to that change and I have read that issue into the record.

Iain Duncan Smith: Will the Minister give way?

Jim Murphy: Unfortunately, I cannot.
	I turn to new clause 9. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) has asserted that the UK's membership of the EU has fundamentally diminished parliamentary sovereignty. That is a striking claim. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but I do not disrespect him. He has sought to make his case in an entirely cogent and logical manner. As the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) is well aware, the classic definition of sovereignty is given by Dicey in his Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution:
	The principle, therefore, of parliamentary sovereignty means neither more nor less than this, namely that 'Parliament' has 'the right to make or unmake any law whatever.
	Parliament exercised its sovereignty in passing the European Communities Act 1972. By doing so, Parliamentnot the EU, not the European Court of Justice, but Parliamentdecided to accept the obligations of EU membership for the UK. Parliament has continued to exercise its sovereignty in passing the legislation necessary to implement every EU amending treaty since the Single European Act 1986.
	Let me be clear, as I was yesterdaythe UK Parliament is and remains sovereign. That is not affected one millimetre or one inch by the Lisbon treaty. As our own courts have ruled,
	the fundamental legal basis of the UK's relationship with the EU rests with the domestic not the European legal powers.
	That came from Lord Justice Laws.
	In concluding, let me be clear that the primacy of EU law has existed since before we joined the EU, and it remains today. In his earlier contributions, the hon. Member for Stone described his amendments as a get out of jail free card. They are not that, but a get out of the EU card that is anything but free. It would be a danger to our national interests, undermine our economy and put in jeopardy the many hundreds of thousands of jobs on which our constituents' welfare and livelihoods and our relationship with the EU depend. On that basis, I encourage and invite my hon. Friends to oppose the amendments.

Dominic Grieve: I echo the Minister in regretting that we have not had the chance to consider the competences and climate change amendments. It is clear that this debate has not been time wasted; there has been no filibustering and there have been important matters to be discussed and debated. That shows how woefully unsatisfactory is the Government's timetable for the consideration of these matters. The Minister said that he hoped that there might be some opportunity a little later to consider the matter, but he knows that there will be no such opportunity. That rather diminished in my eyes the trust that I placed in anything that he said thereafter.
	I come to what the Minister said about the substance of these matters. He would not even listen to the carefully worded thoughts of the right hon. Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt) when she commended what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) had put forward in his new clause 5. We shall return to this point next week, but it seems to me that it would be open to the Government to accept it in the Bill rather than simply saying that the matter will be passed to the Leader of the House for consideration in respect of changing the House's procedures. That, if I may say so, smacks of maana.

Patricia Hewitt: rose

Dominic Grieve: I do not have time to give way, I am afraid.
	If the Government wish to be constructive, here is an opportunity for them, between now and when we may well vote on this next week, to indicate that they accept the amendment.
	I noted that what my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) said about new clause 8 had certain support from those on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
	Amendment No. 13 would do nothing to damage the Government's position. It would provide the reassurance that the lack of clarity in the original text does not provide about this House not being mandated to do anything. For those reasons alone, it is beyond my comprehension that the Government will not accept an amendment that is slight, innocuousas the Minister himself seems to acknowledgeand would go a long way towards meeting some of the criticisms that have been made of the text of the treaty. That text is poorly worded; in places, it is not even proper English. I will point out to the Minister on another occasion just how sloppily the drafting is that has taken place.
	I urge the Minister to accept amendment No. 13. If he will not, as he seems to have indicated, I am afraid that I will put it to the vote.

It being two and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings, the Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means  put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Orders [28 January and this day].
	 The Committee divided: Ayes 156, Noes 350.

Question accordingly negatived.
	The Chairman  then put the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour.
	 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:
	 The Committee divided: Ayes 342, Noes 156.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	To report progress and ask leave to sit again. [Mr. Blizzard]
	 Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

PETITIONS

Palestinian Community of Jayyous

Michael Connarty: I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of Ms Cate Mowat, members of the Antonine Friendship Link, and others. It states:
	The Humble Petition of Ms Cate Mowat and others of like disposition,
	Sheweth
	That families within the Palestinian community of Jayyous are being forced off their agricultural land due to a lack of water from wells. Five of the groundwater wells which they previously had access to, are now situated beyond the new Israeli wall. The Israeli authorities are refusing permits to drill new wells on Jayyous land.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House shall urge the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to consider the plight of the community within Jayyous and to pressurise the Israeli authorities to allow new wells to be drilled on their land.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, c.
	[P000088]

Referendum on the EU Constitution

Bob Spink: Councillor Alan Wood and members of the Campaign for an Independent Britain who compiled the petition agree that it is in the interests of Britain and Europe to renegotiate our relationship with the European Union. They therefore felt it right to test public opinion in the Prime Minister's constituency and the surrounding areas on the promise that the Prime Minister and nearly all Members of Parliament made, as a basis of their election to Parliament, to hold a referendum on the EU constitution, which is now being railroaded through, with inadequate and often no scrutiny on crucial matters, as happened today.
	The constitution shifts powers from Parliament to an unaccountable and undemocratic EU, which is so corrupt and incompetent that, for the 13th year in succession, it has failed to have its accounts signed off

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot make a speech. He must deal specifically with the petition.

Bob Spink: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood the tradition to be that a Member was allowed to speak for about two minutes when presenting a petition.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members must stick to the points that derive from the petition. They cannot make a general speech. Two minutes is generous, and the content must arise from the petition, not the hon. Member's comments.

Bob Spink: I understand entirely and appreciate that you are always generous, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall therefore draw my comments to an end.
	The petition, which I welcome and support, states:
	The Petition of Councillor Alan Wood and residents of Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath and surrounding areas,
	Declares that the Prime Minister has no mandate to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon and cites as firm evidence a professionally conducted ballot in the constituency of Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath asking residents the unambiguous question: Do you want a referendum on the EU Treat of LisbonYes or No?, to which the result was 81.6 per cent. in favour of a referendum, and that the result was accurate to + or - 7.8 per cent. at the 95 per cent. confidence level, and that this result is remarkable considering that there was no pre-publicity and is yet another illustration of the people's concern about the breach of promises made at election times and the further and historically most significant erosion of the UK's parliamentary powers and democracy.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to consult the people on this question of fundamental constitutional importance.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000127]

Lindsay Hoyle: I want to present three petitions on behalf of my constituents in Chorley.
	The first deals with more funding for the hospice movement, and 800 people in Chorley constituency have signed it. They rightly believe that there should be extra money, direct from the Department of Health, to contribute towards funding hospices not only in Chorley but throughout the country. It is right to take note of the dedicated work of the hospice movement, whether for adults or children, and recognise that hospices are underfunded. We want to increase funding for hospices, especially Derian House in Chorley and St. Catherine's hospice just outside Chorley.
	My second petition is about the military covenant, and it has been signed by 1,500 people in the Chorley constituency. They ask the Government to enforce the military covenant. The petition was begun by Chorley Royal British Legion, which rightly took the petition forms out on to the streets of Chorley. People have signed in great numbers because they respect and support our troops and their fight overseas. The people of Chorley support not only the Territorial Army from Chorley and C squadron, which is currently in Afghanistan, but all our troops who serve overseas. We ask the Government to ensure that the military covenant is upheld.
	My third petition is on behalf of Bolton street post office, Chorley. It is an excellent post office and 1,500 people signed the petition on the premises. The strength of feeling about the possible closure of such a successful post office cannot be underestimated. People are appalled that the Post Office or Royal Mail is considering closing it. I stress that 1,500 people who use the post office have signed the petition. There is no other post office for three miles to the south. It serves an elderly population, the area needs it and its closure would be detrimental. The people who signed the petition asked me to present it to the House on behalf of the postmaster at the Bolton street post office in Chorley.
	I would now like to present all three petitions.
	 Following is the full text of the petitions:

Hospices

[The Petition of residents of Chorley and others,
	 Declares that hospices do an excellent job in looking after the terminally ill and their families and therefore should receive more funding from central Government.
	 The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Health to make it his policy to increase direct funding to hospices through the National Health Service.
	 And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
	[P000131]

Support for Armed Forces

[ The Petition of the residents of Chorley and others,
	 Declares that British Service personnel should receive the necessary help and support they require, particularly medical support.
	 The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Defence to honour the covenant between Government and service and ex-service personnel in providing the necessary support and medical assistance they require.
	 And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
	[P000132]

Post Office Closures (Chorley)

[The Petition of residents of Chorley and others,
	 Declares that Bolton Street Post Office provides an essential service to the local community and the proposed closure will be a serious loss to residents within the locality.
	 The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Business , Enterprise and Regulatory Reform to review  the  proposed closure of Bolton Street Post Office.
	 And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
	[P000133]

Police Escape Masks

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. Blizzard.]

Michael Ancram: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of the procurementor, as the case may be, not the procurementof police escape masks from Avon Rubber. The matter affects the well-being of the company and that of my constituents who work in it, but it is also a matter of principle in relation to the moral obligation of Government to those to whom they look to provide them with the equipment that they need.
	Avon Rubber is a famous manufacturing company situated just outside Melksham in my constituency. It currently employs a significant number of my constituents, as well as constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison), who, I know, hopes to speak in this short debate as well. It manufactures specialised equipment, often for Government and Government agencies, which is how the current circumstances arose.
	In 2005, through the police national chemical biological radiological and nuclear centre at Winterbourne Gunner, ACPO (TAM)the Association of Chief Police Officers terrorism and allied matters committeeidentified the need for a design for a protective hood to be used by police officers in the event of a CBRN attack. It asked Avon Rubber, which has been the supplier to the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence and security services for nearly a century, to help it to draft a specification. Once the specification had been approved by the team at Winterbourne Gunner under the direction of Inspector Allan Sneller, the Winterbourne CBRN escape hood, as it had become known, was handed over to OGCbuying.solutions for an international tender.
	The tender specified a requirement for a basic form of respiratory personal equipment to prevent harm to emergency responders so that they were better able to escape safely from a CBRN attack, regroup, re-equip and then redeploy. That, the tender stated, would preserve our limited human resources and enable responders to take the necessary actions to ensure the safety of both the public and themselves, and is the first stage in the response of a CBRN incident. The tender specified a range of required numbers between 170,000 and 350,000.
	Avon Rubber won the tender on 24 August 2006. The official acceptance letter read as follows.
	On behalf of the Treasury
	I stress those words
	I accept your tender dated 23rd September 2005 for the supply and delivery of the CBRN escape hoods as amended by the enclosed emails dated 27th June 2006 and 18th July 2006. The contract will commence on 24th July 2006 for a 2 year period with a possible extension for a further 2 years.
	The cost of the hoods stated in the e-mails referred to in that letter was based on a volume commitment of 170,000140,000 for the police and 30,000 for the national health service ambulance service. As required by the contract, Avon Rubber then invested 2.2 million in establishing a production line, together with sufficient manpower to run two shifts. Thus the minimum number of units contracted in the first two years was to be 170,000.
	Soon after the award of the contract, the police national CBRN centre at Winterbourne Gunner was reorganised and most of its responsibilities transferred to the police national CBRN centre at Ryton, near Coventry. That, apparently and inexplicably, led to a change of attitude towards the escape hood. It now seems that the procurement and the contract were a sham, and that there has never been an agreement between the various police forces on a common strategy for rolling out the hoods. Indeed, the national co-ordinator for CBRN policing, Assistant Chief Constable Richard Stowewho has since left the post after little more than a yearhas told Avon Rubber that he sees no need for the numbers committed to in the contract.
	After 20 months, the number of hoods ordered by the police amounts to 21,000 against the 140,000 promised, which would have equipped every officer in the country. There is now no pattern as to who has hoods and who does not. For example, the Scottish constabulary have ordered enough to equip every officer on duty. The Metropolitan police, having originally said no, have recently changed their minds and funded an order for 10,000. The ambulance service has bought its 30,000 so that every ambulance is now equipped. The Ministry of Defence has also taken 4,500 for its civilian contractors in Iraq. However, as a result of the change of policy with regard to the police order and the massively reduced take-up, the manufacturing line has had to be closed down and the work force reallocated or made redundant.
	I and my hon. Friend are anxious to see this company, which employs our constituents, prosper. We feel that there has been a breach of good faith on the part of the Government, which is why I am raising this matter on the Floor of the House tonight. The principle to which I referred at the outset of my remarks is that where companies make investments because they have been asked to do so by Governments or their agencies, that must create at least a moral obligation on the Government to see, either directly or through its agencies, that the agreements upon which the request are based are subsequently fulfilled.
	I have been to see the Minister in this regard and although he listened with courtesy, he later in effect washed his and the Government's hands of all responsibility. I say to him in all sincerity tonight that he cannot wash his hands. The tender that led to this contract was accepted on behalf of the Treasury, which is an integral part of the Administration to which he, as a Minister, owes collective responsibility.
	The Minister must see, as I do, that the shambles over this procurement could have far-reaching consequences. Why should Avon Rubber ever trust the police or the Home Office again? Why should it put any effort into supporting the design and manufacture of a vital product if in the end it is treated in such a cavalier fashion?
	This goes wider, however. Increasingly, Government look to the private sector to provide for their specialist requirements. If they are to continue to do so, they must build a strong sense of trust with the private sector to ensure continuity of supply. In this case, that trust has blatantly been breached. As things stand, the message to other suppliers and manufacturers is that Government assurances upon which they are asked to make significant investment decisions cannot be trusted. That is a bad message to give.
	There is another aspect. We live at a time of heightened security. I know, as does the Minister, that we can be anything but certain that there will not be further successful terrorist incidents. We might not know the nature of such incidents, but the possibility must be that they could well involve explosives, radiological material or chemicals or gas, or a combination of them. What would happen if, heaven forbid, there was such a serious incident? The ambulance crews would be protected by the hoodwhich, incidentally, has now been re-designated as an emergency hood. That would provide them with short-term protection at the scene of the incident while they helped victims, as well as the protection to escape. Astonishingly, they might have no immediate police back-up to support them because the police had no such hoods.
	The Government owe it to the people to ensure that the services of law and order and the rescue services are all properly equipped to respond in a co-ordinated manner to such situations. Failure to do so could be culpable. I hope that the Minister will bang heads together in the national interest to reactivate the order. If he does not, he might have to accept responsibility for the consequences. What is certain is that he can no longer wash his hands of this.

Andrew Murrison: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) for allowing me a couple of minutes to make a few supporting remarks.
	I am familiar with the Defence NBC school at Winterbourne Gunner where I have trained with my own trusty respirator, which was, of course, made at the excellent Avon Rubber in Melksham. The EH20 escape hood was developed jointly by Winterbourne Gunner and Avon Rubber. Subsequently, at the time of its relocation to Ryton, the Police National CBRN Centre appeared to change its mind on that piece of kit, which it had jointly brought to life with Avon Rubber. Such dither on something so important is cause for great concern, and I hope the Minister will comment on that.
	The tender was accepted by the Treasury and was subsequently reneged on by the Home Office, and yet the Scottish police and the English ambulance service have proceeded with it in full. Either they have got it right or the English police have got it right; they cannot both have got it right. At a time when we are supposed to be looking at a co-ordinated response to the threats we face, it strikes me as somewhat odd that we should be adopting such a mosaic response to threats of this kindso much for a joined-up approach to homeland security.
	The EH20 escape hood is designed for escaping safely from a hazardous environment, and it is good for about 20 minutes. It was developed following the Tokyo subway disaster of 1995. The Minister will remember that the wash-up from that incident seemed to suggest that the emergency services' responses were somewhat lacking, and that the toll from the incident might possibly have been due in part to the failure to plan adequately for such eventualities. Such threats still stand, but where is the means of protecting escapees and first responders? The Minister needs to understand that there will be first responders at such scenes who will wish to go in and render assistance.
	What message does the Minister think his indecision and delay send to partners in the UK defence industry? Our defence and security industries are meant to be in some kind of partnership with Ministers as we face the various novel threats of today, yet here we have the Government establishing themselves as a somewhat unreliable customer who reneges on deals. That seems to be a strange way of approaching a partnership. We can be sure that the industry will have noted the way Avon Rubber has been treated by the Government, and that it will wish to amend any tenders that it makes for this kind of Government work accordingly.
	In the absence of a dedicated homeland security Minister, the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing is responsible for this matter, as he is responsible for preparedness. I have to say that this sorry episode makes me wonder what he is up to.

Tony McNulty: I shall address the concerns expressed by the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), but I shall ignore the contribution of the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison), as he has failed to show the common courtesy of the House by not asking me whether he could take part in the debate. I do not know whether he asked the Chair.
	As is customary on these occasions, I would like to congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes on securing the debate. As he said, I am familiar with the matters that he has raised, having met him on 16 April 2007 to discuss the EH20 escape hood, and having corresponded with him on several occasions since then. He will perhaps not be surprised to hear me say that I can add nothing new to those exchanges.
	As I have previously indicated to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, although I agree that the situation that has arisen is regrettable, it is not one in which the Government have a direct role. The Government have always worked in close partnership and co-operation with the police to ensure that they have the necessary resources, training and equipment to perform their various roles. However, chief constables retain ultimate discretion over tactical decisions and operational requirements and procedures. They make the day-to-day decisions about priorities for their forces, the deployment of their staff and the use of the funding available to them to deliver their objectives.
	The Home Office has, of course, worked particularly closely with police forces over the years to tackle the threat of terrorism, including the possible use of chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear materials or weapons against this country. As part of that, the Home Office has centrally funded the development and procurement of police personal protective equipmentthe so-called CR1 ensemblewhich enables police officers to operate in hazardous environments. However, it is not the case that the Home Office centrally supplies all police equipment; nor does it supply all equipment used for counter-terrorism purposes. Central funding and procurement arrangements apply to a limited and agreed set of equipment.
	Forces are themselves generally responsible for the training and equipping of their officers, as appropriate to their duties. The costs of doing so are met from the annual police grant paid to each force. It is entirely a matter for each force to decide on its individual needs and priorities for day-to-day policing in its area, and to determine whether to acquire additional quantities of centrally supplied equipment or to supplement it with alternative kit. I would far rather rely on the judgment of each and every one of those chief constables in assessing the equipment and resources that they need, rather than on the judgment, however impassioned, of Back-Bench Members of this House. That is the role of the chief constables. I slightly resent the aspersions cast on the integrity of every one of those chief constables and the decisions that they make in real and serious circumstances for the protection and welfare of their local communities.
	In 2003, the Association of Chief Police Officers identified a potential risk to police officers who might be exposed to hazardous environments without notice and would therefore be unprotected from the effects of dangerous materials. In its resulting report, ACPO recommended a range of measures including raising staff awareness of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear incidents and promulgating guidance on what to do following a CBRN attack. ACPO also identified a need for portable safety equipment for officers who are not normally expected to deal with CBRN incidents. On the latter point, a scrutiny of the marketplace at the time failed to identify an available, suitable product that could be issued to front-line officers for use, should they find themselves caught up in such an event. A decision was therefore reached to seek to develop a bespoke product.
	A multi-agency steering group led from the police national CBRN centre at Winterbourne Gunner was convened to mount a procurement process. After competitive tendering, that resulted in the award of a contract to Avon Protection UK for the EH20 escape hood.
	A framework contract was put in place by the Office of Government Commerce enabling not only police forces but other public sector bodies to purchase quantities of the hood. I am informed that to date orders to the value of 2.9 million have been placed by the police, the ambulance service and the Ministry of Defence, equating to around 50,000 hoods.
	The establishment of the police national CBRN centre at Ryton has had no bearing on decisions on the EH20 hoods. The contract was already in place at the time and decisions on procurement, as always, rest with the individual forces. The right hon. and learned Gentleman states that the contract is misleading in that it stipulated that at least some 170,000 units would be purchased. Although the contract does indeed provide estimated sales volumes and overall value, it also makes it clear that there can be no guarantees of the actual number of units purchased. That is entirely the norm in a framework contractual agreement. Given that the requirement for the EH20 was derived from a police health and safety assessment and that individual chief constables are responsible for the health and safety of their staff, it is right that forces should be responsible for purchasing the products according to their respective needs and their professional assessment and judgment.
	The police national CBRN co-ordinator has taken steps to ensure that all forces are aware of the existence of the EH20 hood and of the framework contract arrangements. He had carried that out before I met the right hon. and learned Gentleman and, at my behest, has done it again since. Although I agree that greater clarity and precision during the procurement process would have been desirable, it is unlikely that such a situation could occur again given the more rigorous approach now being adopted for any centralised police procurement processes for CBRN equipment.
	As I stated at the outset, the operational responsibility for day-to-day policing rests with chief constables, as does the decision on appropriate equipment and procedures for their staff. Decisions on whether to purchase the EH20 hood are therefore solely a matter for individual forces. It would not be appropriate for the Government to seek to interfere with that operational independence or in the commercial arrangements entered into by Avon Rubber by way of the framework contract.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Eight o'clock.

DEFERRED DIVISION

Local Government

That the draft Cheshire (Structural Changes) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.
	 The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 151.

Question accordingly agreed to.